Outcome Mapping for Olof Palme


Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Outcome Mapping for Olof Palme

    1. 1. Outcome Mapping Presentation for Olof Palme International Center, Tirana, 1.11.2007 Steve Powell & Ivona Čelebičić proMENTE social research, Sarajevo
    2. 2. Aims for this session <ul><li>What is OM? </li></ul><ul><li>What is new/right/exciting about OM? </li></ul><ul><li>Our project: experiences from Bosnia and Herzegovina </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>What is in it for you </li></ul>
    3. 3. Who are we <ul><li>Steve Powell & Ivona Čelebičić proMENTE social research, Sarajevo </li></ul><ul><li>Sources for OM: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE www.idrc.ca </li></ul><ul><li>See: www.promente.org/OM </li></ul>
    4. 4. What is OM? <ul><li>An approach to project planning, monitoring and evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>A new, soft alternative to replace or complement LFA, RBM etc </li></ul><ul><li>A new paradigm/way of thinking. A backlash? </li></ul><ul><li>An M&E tool for internal use by the implementing agency? </li></ul><ul><li>A tool for external evaluators? </li></ul><ul><li>A box full of ideas for everybody? </li></ul>
    5. 5. Game
    6. 6. Problems with traditional approaches Strategy maps inspire thinking about different dimensions of planning Mechanistic approach to strategy Quality, not quantity of change Focus too much on impact in areas “where their influence … is low and decreasing relative to that of other actors”* Fits better with what CSOs feel they are doing: stimulating change, not delivering outputs CSOs tend to see it as alien OM Traditional help implementing agencies to become “learning organisations” Exclusive focus on impact/results Rich, useful feedback Provide only “clueless feedback” Contribution (what did they do, what worked?) Attribution (did they really cause the change?) Flexible Inflexible Focus on development/change of key partners; quality, not quantity Force implementing orgs to try to demonstrate that they caused numerically large impacts
    7. 7. Logframe vs. OM Vision Implementing agency: strategy Boundary partners: changes in attitudes, behaviour, system Other actors? ? Outputs Outcomes Objectives Goal
    8. 8. <ul><li>Boundary partners ≠ beneficiaries! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(might be, do not have to be) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There can be more than one group of boundary partners </li></ul><ul><li>Development work is really about leveraging the influence of a limited number of key partners … </li></ul><ul><li>… focus is NOT on the stakeholders with whom the boundary partners interact </li></ul><ul><li>changing consciousness, ways of working … </li></ul><ul><li>… in service of a vision </li></ul>Boundary partners: changes in attitudes, behaviour, system
    9. 9. Example Implementing agency: Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly Boundary partners: young politicians Outcome challenge: Empowered young politicians influence the change of the everyday politics in their parties. Recognized need for improvement in the areas selected in the party modules, continuous activities on the empowerment of youth engaged in politics. Other actors: political parties, other young politicians … Vision The partners become part of a new, younger, gender-equal generation in politics, who through their influence in their political parties initiate a change in the direction of everyday political issues – away from national/ethnic issues towards themes which respect democracy and human rights including gender rights and which will contribute to social prosperity in the long term. …. … …. …
    10. 10. OM: 12 steps Helping the implementing partner to learn Internal M &E Considering all the dimensions of strategy 11. Performance journal 7. Organisational practices Evaluation Outcome & performance monitoring Intentional design 10. Strategy journal 6. …Strategy maps 12. Evaluation plan 8. Monitoring priorities 9. Outcome journals 5. ...Progress markers 4. ...Outcome challenges 3. ...Boundary partners 2. Mission 1. Vision
    11. 11. Progress marker ladders Vision Boundary partner 1 Boundary partner 2 Outcome challenge 1 Love to see Like to see Expect to see Outcome challenge 2
    12. 12. “ Official” OM and t he spirit of OM <ul><li>OM is available in bits ... </li></ul>
    13. 13. Our project in B&H : 1 donor, 3 framework partners, 6 implementing partners, 6 projects 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 &quot;Improvement of access to justice – Raising public awareness on access to rights, legislative changes and legal procedures in BiH Vasa Prava Sarajevo 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 Operational costs for 2006 BiH Press Council (funded by SHC) Sarajevo Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 &quot;Citizen in action&quot;– Project of community-based advocacy campaigns for solving priority citizens problems from &quot;Civic Platform for 2006 Elections&quot;. &quot;Local Government leadership building activities&quot; Civil Society Promotion Center – GROZD, &quot;Citizen in action&quot; Sarajevo 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 Academy for political leaders Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA) – Academy for political leaders) Banja Luka Olof Palme International Center 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 Village activities (including round tables in towns) Most, Visegrad 01 st of January 2007 – 31 st of December 2007 Womens political lobby Zenski Centar, Trebinje Kvinna til Kvinna Timeframe Evaluated activity Partner organisation Framework organisation
    14. 14. Aim s of our OM project in B&H <ul><li>Explorative evaluation of the six projects </li></ul><ul><li>Sida-funded civil society programming : lessons on sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Exploration of OM as a tool </li></ul>
    15. 15. Conclusions & Recommendations <ul><li>What do you think? </li></ul><ul><li>What is OM NOT good for? </li></ul>
    16. 16. “ Official OM” <ul><li>could/should be adopted by donors right from the project application stage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise, difficult to implement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Donors have to lower the measurement bar: from attribution to contribution </li></ul><ul><li>Donors have to want to help organisations to learn, at the cost of demonstrating effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Should be done internally -> Time constraints -> focus on limited, quality information </li></ul>
    17. 17. Using the “spirit of OM” informally <ul><li>can really change the way CSOs think about how they work </li></ul><ul><li>can usefully influence planning & implementation </li></ul>
    18. 18. Take-home-point <ul><li>In your planning and monitoring… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>agree on a limited number of boundary partner groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… and try to focus a “ladder” of changes in their behaviour/ consciousness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… which you would like or love to see </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Practise! <ul><li>Remember your vision… </li></ul><ul><li>Identify 1-3 boundary partner groups </li></ul><ul><li>Write an outcome challenge for ONE boundary partner group </li></ul><ul><li>Write progress markers for that outcome challenge </li></ul>
    20. 20. Identify 1-3 boundary partner groups <ul><li>Those individuals, groups, & organizations with whom a program interacts directly to effect change & with whom the program can anticipate some opportunities for influence. </li></ul>
    21. 21. Write an outcome challenge for ONE boundary partner group <ul><li>Outcome Challenge Statements: </li></ul><ul><li>Describe the boundary partner`s contributions to the vision </li></ul><ul><li>Describe the ideal behavioural changes </li></ul><ul><li>Are about a single boundary partner </li></ul>