The document introduces Outcome Mapping, a method for planning and assessing social change projects. It was developed in the 1990s as an alternative to traditional logical framework and results-based management approaches. Outcome Mapping focuses on influencing boundary partners' behaviors rather than attributing impact. It defines progress markers to track non-linear changes in partners over time. The method has been used successfully by organizations like VECO and St2eep to integrate monitoring and evaluation into project planning and promote learning.

1. Outcome Mapping BOND Quality Group 11 December 2008 London Simon Hearn (s.hearn@odi.org.uk) ODI, London

2. Introduce Outcome Mapping Present examples Present the virtual learning community

3. Origins of Outcome Mapping 1990’s: IDRC had a need to demonstrate results 1998: Discovered Outcome Engineering (Barry Kibel) – used to plan and measure the results of drug rehabilitation 2000: publication of the OM manual in English Global training & using OM globally 2006 : www.outcomemapping.ca

5. Focus of Outcome Mapping Beginning Life cycle of the program End During Objectives Inputs Activities Results Outputs Impact

6. Focus of Outcome Mapping Sphere of Control Sphere of Influence Sphere of Interest LFA focus RBM focus OM focus Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

7. Focus of Outcome Mapping Outcome Mapping Local partners / beneficiaries ownership increases Program influence decreases Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

8. The Problem with Impact Impact implies… The reality is… Cause & effect Open system Positive, intended results Unexpected positive & negative results occur Focus on ultimate effects Upstream effects are important Credit goes to a single contributor Multiple actors create results & need credit Story ends when program obtains success Change process never ends

9. What is Outcome Mapping? A method for planning and assessing the social effects and internal performance of projects, programs, and organisations

11. Useful M&E Depends On Learning & Reporting (Info to users/events/audiences) Clarifying Intent (Both interventions & outcomes) M&E Planning (Choosing what to track) M&E Implementation (Data collection & interpretation)

12. 4 Key Planning Questions Vision Boundary Partners Outcomes Challenges, Progress Markers Mission, Strategy Map, Organizational Practices Why? Who? What? How?

13. Key ideas in Outcome Mapping

14. Look at the bigger picture See yourself as a part of an interconnected web of actors, factors and relationships

15. Constant change “ It’s not possible to see the same river twice”

16. Recognize that change is… Continuous Complex Non-linear Multidirectional Not controllable

17. Keep your eyes wide open “ Being attentive along the journey is as important as arriving at the destination” Michael Quinn Patton

18. In the face of this complexity: How can we increase our knowledge of the processes we engage in? How can we know if we made a difference? How can we understand social change? How can we recognize contributors and share the credit?

19. Contribution, not Attribution Change processes involve interactions among multiple actors and factors

20. Influence, not Impact You can influence but not control change in your partners

21. Methodologically, what does OM add? Outcomes as behaviour changes Definition of system boundaries Focus on actors who will drive & maintain change Sets out a pathway of change with markers

22. The Limits of Influence Programme Sphere of Control Sphere of Influence Sphere of Interest Beneficiaries Stakeholders Boundary Partners

23. Boundary Partners Those individuals, groups, or organisations with whom the program Interacts directly to effect change Anticipates opportunities for influence Engages in mutual learning

24. Behaviour Change Behaviour is defined as… Actions Activities Interactions Relationships … of your Boundary Partners

25. Why Outcomes as Behaviour Change? Measurable and observable Sympathetic to the difference between influence and control, attribution and contribution Recognises the limits of the programme’s influence

26. Progress markers Expanding influence, helping others, sharing expertise Actively engaged, learning, commitment Early encouraging response to program, initial engagement Love to see Like to see Expect to see

27. Progress Markers move from initial to more profound changes in behaviour show transformation in a single boundary partner more informative than a single indicator

28. Primary Uses PLANNING Articulate goals & define activities MONITORING Track program performance & partners’ progress EVALUATION Design & conduct a use-oriented evaluation

29. Other uses SYSTEMISATION Rebuild the story or parts of the intervention or from the partners’ perspective EXTERNAL EVALUATION Existent or re-built intentional design as the base of a traditional evaluation COMBINED WITH OTHER METHODS According to M&E requirements

30. Principles of use Flexible: modular to be adapted to use & context Complementary : combine with other methods

31. Participatory : seeks dialogue and collaboration with partners Evaluative : promotes culture of reflection, results oriented thinking, and social & organizational learning Principles of use

32. Where is the map? OM is a guide to the journey we take with our partners. We co-create the map. It focuses on the intention and what happens along the way The map is not the territory, it shows the route taken

33. A few examples…

34. St 2 eep Secondary teacher training in environmental education Zimbabwe, from 2003 Partnership between Ministry of Higher Education, VVOB, Secondary Teacher Training Colleges

35. St 2 eep Initially using a Log Frame Did not address the programme’s theory of change Informal self-assessment and monitoring Donor driven M&E divorced from programme planning Limited learning Adopted OM for second phase Integrated M&E into project planning to ensure learning Involved partners in planning process

36. St 2 eep Factors that helped uptake of OM Realisation of the problem Very applicable manual and OM framework OM worked with culture of St 2 eep programme Core team to push through new ideas Support from VVOB, IDRC and other OM users

37. VECO Belgian NGO 13 countries Food security, sustainable agriculture Policy advocacy and networking

38. VECO Problems with logical framework Strong emphasis on quantitative indicators Results and reporting focus of M&E Limited learning and mutual accountability

39. VECO New system New strategic plan gave opportunity to embed an OM approach in its M&E Planning, Learning and Accountability Tested in Indonesia first Problems Donor required LFA Developed a ‘bricolage’ framework between OM and LFA OM for internal planning LFA for reporting

40. VECO

41. VECO Benefits of OM OM facilitates critical reflection Greater variety of partners Wider scope of strategies to build capacity Assessment of internal processes – CO’s were BPs of Head office

42. Further Information Visit the OM learning community: www.outcomemapping.ca Contact: Simon Hearn [email_address]