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 , 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…)
Can an exhaustive list of impact evaluation designs be developed, or is my mission on this futile? August 27, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Impact evaluation, Evaluation debates, Attribution, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Evaluation planning, Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes , add a commentI have set out on a mission as a part of outcomes theory to attempt to develop an exhaustive list of impact/outcome evaluation designs - evaluation designs which make a claim that changes in high-level outcomes can be attributed to a particular intervention. If we could pull off developing such a list that most people are happy with, it would be very powerful. First it could be used in evaluation planning to work out if all of the possible impact evaluation designs had been assessed for their appropriateness, feasibility and/or affordability. At the moment I think that almost every evaluation planner walks around wondering if there is some sort of impact evaluation design they have not considered.
(more…)
Formative evaluation versus impact/outcome evaluation August 20, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Evaluation debates, Use of terms, Outcomes theory, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation planning, Using the approach, Easy Outcomes , add a commentIn response to a posting on one of my outcomes theory articles by Marcus Pilgrim who ran the recent YEN Evaluation Clinic in Damascus, I have worked up an article on the difference between formative, process and impact/outcome evaluation. As Marcus points out in his posting, the term formative (or developmental) evaluation is not one which is widely known in all sectors. Formative evaluation is directed at optimizing program implementation. Process evaluation attempts to describe the course and context of a program. Impact/outcome evaluation looks at the intended and unintended, positive and negative outcomes of a program and whether they can be attributed to the program. (more…)
Mapping indicators onto a logic model is obvious - but why haven’t we always done it? August 18, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Indicators, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Measurement, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes models, Using the approach, DoView , add a commentI was running a workshop today teaching policy analysts the basics of my approach to program evaluation (Easy Outcomes). One of the participants, when I talked about the importance of always mapping indicators back onto a visual model, commented that when you do it, it’s so obviously the right approach that you can’t understand why we’ve not been doing it for years.
The idea behind this approach is that the way we almost always approach indicator work is to eye-ball a list or table of indicators and ask the question of a group of busy people sitting around a table - ‘does this list of indicators look any good?’
(more…)
Randomistas Rule August 16, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Evaluation debates, Attribution, Impact evaluation, Outcomes systems architecture, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes theory, Using the approach , add a commentJust read and commented on an interesting article referred to on the 3IE site - a site dedicated to improving evidence about what works in international development. The article was by Martin Ravallion and was about the rise of the Randomistas in international development economics. Randomistas are those who promote much more use of randomized trials to try and work out what works in international development. It is a good article which points out the fact that randomized trials are not feasible in many important types of development interventions. This debate is the same one which is occurring in many sectors at the moment and one which has been debated on and off in the evaluation field for many years. My take on it is that we need to develop some underlying principle which we can debate and generally agree on so that we don’t need to have this debate endlessly without seemingly making much progress on it.
(more…)
Flow of causality in outcomes models and feedback loops August 14, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Measurement, Outcomes theory, Communicating outcomes models, Using the approach, Outcomes models, DoView , 4commentsA quick technical blog here. Fellow evaluator Rick Davies pointed out in a post on one of my outcomes theory articles (on how to best represent causal models), that strictly visualizing causality as flowing in one direction within an outcomes model (logic model, results map, logframe, theory of change etc.) could be seen as preventing the representation of feedback loops. This is because if you are, as I usually do, representing causality as flowing from bottom to top within a model (others do it left to right) then when you want to represent a feedback loop it will, of necessity, have to flow back down the logic model against the direction in which causality is being represented. (more…)
Over-simplifications in outcomes, monitoring and evaluation June 3, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Outcomes theory, Accountability, Evaluation planning, Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes , add a commentAn evaluation colleague Patrica Rogers commented on an earlier blog posting of mine in which I was claiming that what I am trying to do it to make outcomes, monitoring and evaluation work ‘easier’. She challenged me on that idea and pointed out that often what we are having to deal with is over-simplification in the way people are working with outcomes, monitoring and evaluation. Her comment inspired me to work up an article on over-simplification in outcomes and evaluation and after getting underway with it I realized all of the different ways in which people approach outcomes, monitoring and evaluation with over-simplified approaches and the problems which these cause. (more…)
Intense analysis of the U.N. Results-Based Management System May 5, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Indicators, Accountability, Standards, Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Measurement, Outcomes models , add a commentI have just put up an Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base article which is an intense analysis of the United Nation Results-Based Management System. (Its obscure work, but someone has to do it!). The exciting part is that it has let me road-test my new Outcomes Systems Checklist. This now provides a common framework for analyzing any outcomes system - outcomes systems being any system which attempts to identify, measure, attribute or hold parties to account for outcomes or the steps which it is thought lead to them. A 2008 report from the U.N. itself on its Results-Based Management System said that the system was: ‘an administrative chore of little value to accountability and decision-making”.
Visual model of what I’m trying to do with my outcomes work April 28, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes theory, Using the approach, Outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Blog info , 2commentsThought that I would apply a taste of my own medicine to my own work, so I drew a visual outcomes model of what it is that I’m trying to do with my work in the outcomes area. It is here. At the top is my high level outcome ‘Make working with outcomes, monitoring, evaluation etc. easier’ and below that is all of the lower-level steps I am using to get to this high-level outcome. I have included hyperlinks out to the various web sites where I am attempting to do the things listed in the lower-level steps.
Paul Duignan, PhD
Outcomes and Evaluation Blog (OutcomesBlog.org)
Making outcomes theory more concrete - checklist for assessing outcomes systems April 21, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Accountability, Measurement, Using the approach, Communicating outcomes models, Strategic planning, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes models , 1 comment so farMost normal people would think that it’s very very obscure, but I’ve just put up a Checklist for Analyzing Outcomes Systems in the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base and it’s a very exciting development. Up until now the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base has consisted of a set of articles which outline various aspects of outcomes theory. Outcomes theory is a general theory which covers all types of outcomes systems. Outcomes systems are any type of performance management system, results-base system, monitoring system, evaluation system, outcomes-focused contracting system, or strategic planning system (the term even includes evidence-based practice systems). Such systems have, in the past, been seen as somewhat different types of things without a common theory existing to analyze them. Outcomes theory is based on the insight that we can theorize them as a common type of system and then use the theory to work out how such systems should be best structured. This approach becomes powerful at the moment that we can start applying it to actual real-world outcomes systems. This is the role of the checklist I’ve just developed. (more…)