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…)
Avoid being an outcomes model ‘Go-Between’ September 26, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Using the approach, Standards, Outcomes models, DoView , add a comment
A while ago a colleague recounted to me how they’d ended up pulling out their hair because they found themselves in a ‘Go-Between’ role when drawing an outcomes model (also called program logics, results chains, strategy maps, ends-means diagrams). You need to try to avoid this at all costs, although when dealing with high level stakeholders it’s often not easy to do so. I found myself in this role on a major project a while ago and I certainly didn’t enjoy it.
(more…)
What’s the Easy Outcomes site all about? September 20, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation planning, Easy Outcomes, DoView , add a commentI’ve realized that I’ve not put up a post about the Easy Outcomes site even though it’s been up for a few weeks. Easy Outcomes takes the Systematic Outcomes Analysis approach and applies it using DoView outcomes software. We developed it in response to feedback that the Systematic Outcomes Analysis site is a bit intense for those who just want to work out how to develop a good evaluation plan, but don’t want to get buried in the detail of the approach too soon. (more…)
New Systematic Outcomes Analysis case study - evaluating an academic research rating scheme September 20, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Systematic Outcomes Analysis, Evaluation planning, DoView , 1 comment so farI’ve recently put up the link to another case study on the Systematic Outcomes Analysis site. This is a report detailing an evaluation and monitoring plan for the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). The PBRF is a national academic research output assessment system and the monitoring and evaluation framework was produced for the government organization responsible for the tertiary sector - the Tertiary Education Commission.
The report is a good example of a comprehensive use of Systematic Outcomes Analysis (in the report the approach went by one of its earlier names - REMLogic). One of the interesting things about the PBRF is that it’s an evaluation system in its own right and developing an evaluation framework for an evaluation system presents an interesting technical challenge. I’ll put up a blog post about that challenge some time in the future. (more…)