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 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…)
The Taxi Driver and ‘why don’t you just measure outcomes’ - on the way to AES conference September 1, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Measurement, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes models, Using the approach, Easy Outcomes , add a commentOn my way to the Australasian Evaluation Society Conference in Canberra my taxi driver in from the airport asked me what I do. When I explained that I ‘measure whether programs, often government programs, work or not so the taxpayer gets value for money’, he was right into the concept. Although I think he thought that I was over complicating things a little. He said: ’shouldn’t it just be a matter of using statistics to measure if things are getting better or not about a program.’ What he was talking about was one aspect of monitoring and evaluation - an important piece - but just one of the Five Building Blocks I see lying behind all monitoring and evaluation systems (outcomes systems). (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…)
Tracking jobs created under the U.S. Recovery Act - when should the attempt at measurement be abandoned? June 16, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Impact evaluation, Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Outcomes theory & politics, Indicators, Accountability, Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Measurement, Outcomes theory & the news, Evaluation planning , add a commentThe default expectation in at least some sections of the U.S. public sector seems to be that it should always be feasible and affordable to both measure and attribute the results of interventions. This is using the term attribution to mean being able to actually demonstrate that a change in an outcome has been caused by a particular intervention rather than being the result of other factors (see here for more on attribution). The recent U.S. Recovery Act is a case in point. While it’s reasonable to start from the position that you should routinely assess the possibility of measuring and attributing changes in outcomes of particular interventions, you can’t start by just assuming that it will always be feasible or affordable to do this. Clinging to such an assumption, where it is untrue, can result in you either measuring an outcome when the data you are collecting is not accurate, or acting as though what you are measuring (even if it is an accurate measurement of a change in an outcome) is demonstrably attributable to a particular program, when in fact it may not be. (more…)
The error of limiting focus to only the attributable June 8, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Indicators, Accountability, Using the approach, Measurement, Easy Outcomes , add a commentI am continuing to develop a set of articles which outline various problems which are often built into the outcomes systems which I see. The one I have just put up is on the Error of Limiting Focus to Only the Attributable. This is where the whole emphasis of a performance management or other outcomes system is just on holding a provider to account for a list of demonstrably attributable indicators (often called outputs, deliverables, or key performance indicators). This often creates problems. (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…)
Unalterable deliverables and program inflexibility June 2, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Indicators, Accountability, Measurement, Using the approach , add a commentBack blogging now after having been on holiday. Recently I ran into the problem of unalterable deliverables in a project I am involved in. This problem was also mentioned in the UN report on its results-based management system that I blogged about a couple of postings ago. The problem arises where a project is set up and deliverables are set, but where ideally there needs to be some flexibility regarding deliverables as the program develops over time. Sometimes the problem is just a result of the difficulty of changing deliverables. (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”.
The single list of indicators problem April 27, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Reporting systems, Outcomes systems architecture, Indicators, Measurement, Accountability, Using the approach , 2commentsMany results management, performance management and monitoring systems suffer from what is called the ’single list of indicators’ problem. I have just put up an article on the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base regarding this problem (the URL of the article is at the bottom of this blog posting). It arises in situations where there is a demand that an indicator list be high-level (i.e. not at the output level) but at the same time that the list be able to be used to hold a program, organization or other intervention to account. Often one list cannot be used to do both of these jobs. There are four things that can happen in regard to single list approaches, all four create problems and can lead to undermining the credibility of the outcomes system in which they occur. (more…)
Tears in outcomes land: the non-output demonstrably attributable indicator paradox April 23, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Attribution, Reporting systems, Indicators, Accountability, Using the approach, Measurement, Outcomes models , add a commentIf there is one thing that causes a terrible amount of pain in outcomes land, it is the Non-Output Demonstrably Attributable Indicator Paradox. This paradox manifests itself as the demand to find an intermediate outcome which can be used for accountability purposes. The paradox comes into play when this quest is accompanied by a demand that such intermediate outcomes not also be outputs. Sometimes this demand is made explicitly, other times it is made implicitly. Outcomes models which are structured into horizontal layers (outputs, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes), implicitly make this demand by requiring that a step be put in either the outputs or the intermediate outcomes layer within the model. Many funder contract management and provider staff spend hours and hours in rooms trying to find such intermediate outcomes only to walk away frustrated. There is a simple solution to this problem by building a technically sound outcomes system. (more…)