jump to navigation

The importance of ‘looking behind the numbers’ in performance management systems May 30, 2010

Posted by Paul Duignan in : Evaluation debates, Reporting systems, Performance management, Measurement, Communicating outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, Using the approach, DoView , 1 comment so far

A 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 : Impact evaluation, Evaluation debates, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Using the approach, Evaluation planning, Easy Outcomes , 2comments

A 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 comment

My 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, Using the approach, Outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, DoView , 2comments

I 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 : Use of terms, Evaluation debates , 8comments

I’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, Outcomes theory, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Using the approach, Standards , 2comments

What’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, Using the approach, Standards, Outcomes models, DoView , 4comments

I’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…)

How many evaluators does it take to change a light bulb? January 9, 2010

Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Using the approach, Outcomes models , 2comments

In response to a series of ‘How many evaluators does it take to change a light bulb?’ jokes on the evaluators list EVALTALK, I whipped up an outcomes model (logic model) for a Changing Light Bulbs Project (some days one does wonder if this is what evaluators do for fun, it must be some sort of illness!).

Anyway here it is http://www.outcomesmodels.org/models/lightbulb62.html

Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my Outcomes Blog; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter).

Developing an M&E plan using a visual approach January 8, 2010

Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Using the approach, Evaluation planning, Easy Outcomes, DoView , add a comment

On various lists I am on I often see requests by people wanting to develop what is called an M&E plan. This terminology is often used in the international development area. It refers to a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. The way these requests are made makes me think that the way you should monitor and evaluate different projects varies a great deal. (more…)

Christmas is over - back to blogging January 7, 2010

Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes models, DoView , 1 comment so far

I’ve been quiet for some time on the blogging front as I’ve been developing a number of resources on outcomes modeling (logic modeling), evaluation and related topics. Now Christmas is over and I’m back to work I’ll be blogging in the next few weeks about these resources. I’ll also be blogging about DoView 2.0 which has just been released. It’s full of new features suggested by users and I’ve been building a range of really cool outcomes models with clients using the beta version and using that for input into its development. (more…)