Op Ed on junk economic estimates August 22, 2011
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Uncategorized , add a commentI’m back blogging now. As an outcomes specialist, I’m always irritated when I see people making what I think are junk estimates. There’s a lot of this going on in economics from the Credit Rating agencies underestimating the risk of junk bonds through to various estimates plugged into all sorts of cost-benefit and other economic analyses that I see from time to time.
One I got my teeth into recently in an Op-Ed I wrote is an estimate regarding the cost of one of the many after-shocks which struck Christchurch NZ in its recent sequence of earthquakes. In this case, an estimate was made of one set of aftershocks which did not seem to take into account the fact that many of the buildings damaged in the after-shock had already been damaged in the earlier earthquakes. As one commentator said, ‘there are only so many times you can write off a building’!
This estimate was shot down by many people when it arose but the problem with junk economic estimates is that they tend to keep popping up like zombies like this one did in at a later date, but without the original criticism which put it in perspective. Anyway, check out the Op-Ed at http://www.outcomescentral.org/files/duignan299quake.pdf.
Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my OutcomesBlog.org; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter; many resources at OutcomesCentral.org
DoView for Mac and DoView 3.0 out – Phew! June 10, 2011
Posted by admin in : DoView , add a commentSince my last post on our work-life balance, things have continued to run at a hectic pace! We’ve been developing resources for use by clients and others, been involved in building models, training in the use of DoView and our approach and we’ve also been involved in getting DoView for Mac and DoView 3.0 out. They have now been released so that is fantastic. A quick alert is that for the next four days both of them are available for the old price before the new price kicks in. So if you’ve been waiting, as many people have, for DoView for Mac or for DoView 3.0 to appear, then get in now (http://www.doview.com). I’ll be blogging about some of the new features over coming weeks and will also start to get out the new resources and materials we have been working on.
Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my OutcomesBlog.org; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter; many resources at OutcomesCentral.org
On being busy April 5, 2011
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Blog info , add a commentI have not blogged for a while due to the fact that I have been involved in multiple projects which have left no time for blogging or much other networking. We are currently involved hands-on in developing many comprehensive DoView Results Maps (TM) (outcomes models/logic models) for many public sector and not-for-profit organizations. This is exciting work as we can see that the basic methodology can be applied in any setting from a very large government department right down to a small community organization. I have also been having input into DoView for Mac which will finally be released soon and DoView 3.0 which has many of the features that people have been asking for in DoView. I have also been doing some international travel – teaching our methodology to the UNFPA Arab and Africa region countries in South Africa and teaching it in Abu Dhabi to people from the Middle East.
Meantime I have been implementing a commitment to keeping my work-life balance under control and spending time with the kids. So blogging has taken a lower priority for a little while. However, I’m planning on getting back to it to get out the interesting material and resources we have been developing. So watch this space.
Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my OutcomesBlog.org; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter; many resources at OutcomesCentral.org
The importance of ‘looking behind the numbers’ in performance management systems May 30, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation debates, Measurement, Performance management, Reporting systems, Using the approach , 1 comment so farA colleague Stan Capela recently highlighted the importance of ‘looking behind the numbers’ in performance management systems. Pointing out that, if this is not done, false conclusions can be drawn from such systems. I think that most people would agree with this sentiment. The key issue for me is what is the most effective way of us ‘looking behind the numbers’ when measuring people’s, project’s or organization’s performance. (more…)
Moving past the debate about randomized experiments May 25, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation debates, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Using the approach , 2commentsA colleague Bob Williams recently drew attention to articles on the New Yorker about the use of randomized experiments and particularly one from an economist advocating their widespread use in a range of program areas.
I’ve been involved in a number of seemingly endless discussions and presentations about the pros and cons of randomized experiments and the rise of what are being called the Randomistas – those advocating for a much wider use of randomized experiments. In this post I want to talk about how we can move beyond these seemingly endless discussions. (more…)
DoView use for visual strategic planning growing April 30, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Uncategorized , add a commentMy best intentions for blogging on a regular basis have fallen by the wayside as I have been swamped with work from all directions. Just last week I spent the evenings webinaring into Cairo and into Europe as the demand for people wanting to know about advanced ways of using DoView outcomes and evaluation software are mounting. Interestingly, my day consulting work at the moment is focusing in on a number of assignments where DoView is being used for strategic planning, rather than evaluation work. I will be putting up some case studies of this work soon as some of the organizations I’m working for are graciously letting me share the work I’m doing with them. More in later blog postings on these case studies. (more…)
New How-To Guides on DoView Site – What’s and outcomes (results) model April 15, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes models, Using the approach , 2commentsI have not been blogging for a while as I’ve been caught up in preparing multiple resources on outcomes models and also actually developing many outcomes models for clients. I now have many great examples which I want to share with you in the coming months. It’s only now that a number of these projects are coming to a conclusion and clients are becoming willing to share them with others. So watch this space.
In the meantime, on the DoView site some new How-To Guides are starting to be put up. The first is on What’s a DoView Outcomes (Results) Model and Why Should I Use One? This is in response to requests from DoView enthusiasts who want to be able to refer people to a quick article about what an outcomes model is and why people should use one for all of their project and organizational planning. (more…)
Is it the role of an evaluator to always ‘value’ what they are evaluating? January 21, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Evaluation debates, Use of terms , 8commentsI’ve had occasion recently to need to think about whether or not the notion of ‘valuing’ something is always an essential part of evaluation. To question this may seem a heresy to some evaluators who see this as the defining aspect of evaluation (for instance as opposed to ‘research’ where they don’t see such valuing as needing to take place). I’m not definite in my thoughts on this issue and below just want to float the argument which has been rattling around in my head for a while and which I have not had a chance to get down in writing to see if it can be shot down – in which case I will change my mind. (more…)
Theory of Change Versus Theory of Action January 15, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes theory, Standards, Using the approach , 2commentsWhat’s the difference between a Theory of Change and a Theory of Action? I’m just clarifying my thoughts on this issue and how it relates to my work thinking about how we conceptualize outcomes models (logic models) within outcomes theory. In summary, at the moment – apart from a Theory of Action just being an outcomes model drawn at a lower level – I can’t see a major difference. However I’m happy to be contradicted on this and will change my view if there are convincing arguments for making the distinction. My current thinking is as set out below. (more…)
The evolution of the logic model January 13, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Outcomes models, Standards, Using the approach , 4commentsI’ve just posted an article on the evolution of the logic model within evaluation. Over the last couple of decades, increasing numbers of evaluators have started using logic models. For those not familiar with what logic models are – they are simply tabular or visual representations of all of the lower-level steps needed to achieve high-level outcomes for a program, organization or other intervention. They go by different names, for instance: program logics, intervention logics, results maps, theories of change, program theories, results hierarchies, strategy maps, end-means diagrams etc.). A traditional way of drawing logic models has evolved (known as the inputs, outputs, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes structured logic model) which often attempts to restrict logic models to a single page. However, many evaluators are now breaking away from the constraints of this traditional format and exploring various alternative ways of representing logic models. (more…)