Standardized visual evaluation plans - quick and effective October 9, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Using the approach, Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Systematic Outcomes Analysis, Outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Uncategorized , add a comment
I’ve not had much time to blog recently due to building a number of large outcomes models for public sector organizations; having input into the further development of DoView; and presenting at international evaluation conferences on Easy Outcomes, DoView and related evaluation and outcomes topics. A lot has been happening though, from version 1.14, DoView is now able to create web page versions of its visual outcomes models. I’ll do several postings showing how this new feature can be used. The first is that now, once an outcomes model has been built in DoView, the user can quickly create a web page version of the same model and then have it put up on an intranet or the internet. You can see (and use) a number of examples at OutcomesModels.org. The second great thing is that you can now produce visual evaluation plans will save you a great deal of time. I delivered a paper on this at the recent European Evaluation Society Biennial Conference in Lisbon. (more…)
A Systematic Outcomes Analysis framework for psychotherapy evaluation February 12, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes systems architecture, Systematic Outcomes Analysis, Outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, DoView , 2comments
In my last blog posting (which you should read before this one) I talked about using Systematic Outcomes Analysis to define the basic tasks one needs to do in quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation and how this can avoid the need for a protracted theoretical discussion about the difference between quality assurance and program evaluation. I was using the example of an illustrative Systematic Outcomes Analysis framework I set up based on an outcomes logic model in regard to psychotherapy which I’ve posted on the Outcomes Models site. Here’s the PDF of the DoView file. Using the Systematic Outcomes Analysis approach, indicators and evaluation questions are mapped onto the outcomes logic model (indicators are marked with a yellow icon and evaluation questions with a green circular icon). This blog posting looks in more detail at ways stakeholders can use such a framework once it’s been developed. (more…)
Avoiding the question: Defining quality assurance versus program evaluation February 12, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes systems architecture, Systematic Outcomes Analysis, Outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Uncategorized , 3comments
Sometimes it’s more useful to avoid initially answering a question that’s posed in a particular way because there’s a better way of addressing the concern that lies behind the question. Such is the case if you’re ever asked to define the difference between quality assurance (or monitoring) and program evaluation.
Seeing the question as a theoretical one and attempting to find a definition which works has some similarities to the situation where you’re building a house and someone keeps wanting you to stop and define, from a theoretical point of view, the difference between the kitchen and the dining room. Now, some people do stuff in the dining room that others do in the kitchen, and some do stuff in the kitchen that others do in the dining room. Still other people don’t really have any theoretical problems because they have a kitchen/dining area where they do both kitchen and dining room stuff.
A more fruitful way of working with the question of the difference between quality assurance (or monitoring) and program evaluation is to attempt to identify all of the stuff (tasks) that you would do under each of these. Once you’ve done that, you can then decide whether or not you need to spend a lot of time defining the difference between the two if everybody concerned is clear about which of the underlying tasks are, and are not, being done by whom. (more…)
Indicators, targets, benchmarks - sorting out the terminology November 27, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Indicators, Measurement, Using the approach , add a commentMany different terms are used in the outcomes and performance management area for measurement and indicators. Often there is considerable confusion about these terms. The short definitions I use from outcomes theory are:
- Outcomes - causes or effects in the real world. Whether or not such causes can be measured is a separate issue (see previous blog for features of outcomes)
- Steps - lower level causes which lead to higher-level outcomes. Because causal processes reside in causal hierarchies, outcomes at one level can be steps for achieving even higher-level outcomes, therefore to refer to causes and effects at any level the general term ‘outcomes and steps’ is used.
- Measurements - measure whether or not an outcome or step has occurred (or how much of it has occurred).
- Indicator - a measurement of an outcome or step.
- Target - a level on an indicator.
- Benchmark - levels on indicators already achieved by other players, or by the same player at an earlier time or in another setting.
- Priorities - an outcome or step which is thought to be the most important for a player to focus their efforts on changing.
Reporting on outcomes to multiple bodies with different outcomes structures November 14, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Outcomes systems architecture, Using the approach, Outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, DoView , add a commentIn a workshop the other day the issue arose of how you deal with the situation where you have to report to a number of different outside organizations on your outcomes. Now, this is not much of a problem where the outside organizations don’t make any implicit or explicit demands on how you report. The way to proceed in such cases is to simply develop your outcomes model and report back to them on it.
However, with more and more organizations thinking in terms of outcomes, they are starting to have outcomes structures of various types themselves. (more…)
Indicator Problems stressing out US Patent Office examiners October 22, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Indicators , add a comment
In an earlier blog posting on the banking system, I commented on the problems associated with indicators which can be distorted by employees. You can either use such indicators to get an accurate measure of an outcome or use them for incentivizing employees, but not both. Of course, if they’re being distorted by employess to maximize their bonuses, then the wrong types of behavior are probably being incentivized. A different problem can arise in those situations where it much harder to distort indicators. These situations in which it’s relatively easy to independently verify indicators are described in the social sciences as being situations where such indicators are reliable. However, indicators need to not only be reliable, they also need to be valid - they need to actually measure what they claim to measure. The US Patent and Trademark Office is having indicator problems of this second type with their production quotas. According to a Washington Post article their production quotas have not been adjusted since 1976 and modern patents are more compex and therefore take more time to process. As a result 67% of staff see production quotas as among the top reasons they would consider leaving and the office has a turnover crisis according to the General Accounting Office. (more…)
New outcomes models (program logics) put up on outcomesmodels.org October 17, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Using the approach, Outcomes models, DoView , add a comment
We’ve just put a number of new outcomes models (program logics) up on the outcomesmodels.org site. We’re planning to continue adding to the outcomes model collection at outcomesmodels.org for two reasons. The first is to give examples of how models can be drawn in DoView. The more examples people see, the easier they find it becomes to build DoView models. The second is to allow people to grab either the whole of one of these models or just some of the slices from one or more models to use as a start in building their own models. DoView’s unique modular approach using multiple diagram slices makes it very easy to do this. (more…)
Beware lumpers, splitters and slice globblers when you’re building outcomes models October 15, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Using the approach, Standards, Outcomes models, DoView , add a comment
When you’re drawing outcomes models (program logics, strategy maps, means-ends diagrams, results chains etc), using DoView or other software there’re a few things which will come up on a regular basis. The first of these is the personality difference between lumpers and splitters who are present in the room. Lumpers, obviously want to lump and splitters, well, they just want to split. So if you’re working on an outcomes model which at a high level includes, say, social and economic outcomes, a lumper will want a single outcome which goes ‘complete social and economic whatever’. A splitter, on the other hand, will want to have two separate outcomes - a ’social whatever’ and an ‘economic whatever’ outcome. Neither of them is right or wrong, although in the first instance I often let the splitter have their way because outcomes or steps can always be combined at a later stage if needed. (more…)
Get out of the dark - cut outcomes confusion with the five features of outcomes October 14, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Using the approach, Outcomes models , 3comments
Many terms are used in outcomes systems to describe the elements which go into such systems representing the steps in the causal processes leading from low level activities through to final high-level outcomes. Terms used include: outcomes, intermediate outcomes, outputs, activities, key drivers, key priorities etc. These terms tend to appear in outcomes models (program logics, strategy maps, ends-means diagrams, results chains etc.). In models which are drawn vertically, they normally appear down the left-hand side. There’s often confusion as to the exact distinctions between these terms and many a happy hour is spent by those trying to implement outcomes systems struggling to work out what a particular step should be called and exactly where it should go in an outcomes model.
Outcomes theory can help clarify this issue by using the five major features of outcomes identified in the theory. Outcomes or the steps which lead to them can be: influencable, controllable, measurable, attributable and accountable. Thinking about it in this way can save you a lot of time and confusion when working with outcomes systems. (more…)
Cutting out parallel processes - the CEO’s responsibility October 11, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes models, Easy Outcomes , add a comment
Outcomes systems are a CEO and other managers’ way of aligning what happens in an organization with the outcomes it’s trying to achieve. It’s rather like the Captain on the bridge of a large aircraft carrier needing a well functioning communications system which flows all the way throughout the vessel. If they don’t have it, they’re not going to get the carrier to go where they want it to. The outcomes systems in many organizations are like an aircraft carrier which has a confusing mess of communications systems - all sorts of flags flying from the bridge, a telephone system, several radio systems, people shouting, small notes passed to individual sailors etc. All these have been introduced at different times, some are badly designed, some are now not functioning in the way they were originally designed to. Meanwhile, the captain is running around the bridge yelling into phones, scribbling on scraps of paper and waving flags while the carrier meanders around the ocean turning in larger and larger circles. (more…)