Getting outcomes creds and saving time! September 25, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Philanthropy, Standards, Strategic planning, Using the approach , add a commentPublic sector organizations these days have two important imperatives: establishing that they are truly ‘results and outcomes-focused’ while also becoming more efficient in their internal organizational activity. The really good news in the outcomes area is that using a central tool of outcomes work – outcomes models (a particular type of visual model of all of the high-level outcomes the organization is seeking to achieve and the steps it is taking to do so) is that organizations and programs can do both at the same time. (more…)
Separating analysis from writing in philanthropic grant applications July 8, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, Grant writing, Philanthropy, Strategic planning , add a commentThe other night I was doing some pro bono work with a small non-profit organization which is attempting to restore a significant landmark building and promote its use for educational and community purposes. I was building a DoView results map (outcomes model) for them in real-time in the course of one of their monthly meetings. They’re using the visual model as their strategic planning approach (instead of the traditionally long narrative text-based plans many people in such small organizations spend many hours sweating over).
Building a DoView model is a very quick way for a community organization to build a simple but effective strategic plan. Once built they can then show others the model and quickly communicate that they’ve thought through what they’re planning to do. (more…)
Making outcomes theory more concrete – checklist for assessing outcomes systems April 21, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Measurement, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Strategic planning, Using the approach , 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…)
What we are all on about – representing causal models April 19, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Strategic planning, Use of terms, Using the approach , add a commentWhether we know it or not, a lot of us in evaluation, monitoring, social programs, philanthropy etc. spend a lot of time working with ‘causal models’. We call them all sorts of things – program justifications, rationales, program activities and objectives, logic models, logframes, intervention logics, strategy maps etc. – and most people who work with them don’t think of them as causal models. But that’ s what they are if we see causal models as just being an attempt to set out ‘what it is believed causes what in the world’. In the case of a program, the model is going to be a model of the steps which you think a program needs to take in order to cause high-level outcomes to occur. We really should get our heads around the best way to represent such models because at the moment I think that there is a great deal of wasted talk and effort about all of this. And it distracts us from getting on with the job of implementing good programs as fast as possible. Every dollar or every hour spent on struggling with an inefficient way of representing our program is a dollar or hour wasted. (more…)
Using visual outcomes models to describe and communicate best practice April 3, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Research influening policy, Strategic planning, Using the approach , 4commentsYesterday I blogged about what is meant by the term ‘best practice’. As I said then, I think that there is some conceptual confusion out there about it, and I am not sure that I have yet tidied it up my own thinking about it in a satisfactory way. However, the great thing is that regardless of how we define it, the idea of identifying the types of things that people currently call best practice and communicating these between programs is a great idea. The most difficult thing in many cases is to get best practice actually applied to on the ground after we have identified it. I have put up an Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base article (link to the article is at the bottom of this posting) on the issue suggesting that an efficient way of describing and communicating best practice may be to use visual outcomes models (a type of logic model). (more…)
Using large visualized outcomes models in policy development December 18, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, DoView, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Strategic planning , 1 comment so far
I recently presented a paper to the European Evaluation Society Conference in Lisbon on the use of large visualized outcomes models in policy development. The conference theme was on ways that evaluation could contribute to policy development. I see visualized outcomes models as one way that evaluators can contribute. Check out the full paper here. Evaluators may see themselves as ideally suited to contribute to high level policy making, however, regardless of evaluators’ views, the powerful players already involved in policy development (stakeholders, politicians, senior public servants, policy analysts, economists and others) need to be convinced that the evaluation discipline can add real value to the policy making process. What actual value can evaluation add? (more…)
Outcomes: Keep it simple – but not simplistic! September 14, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes models, Standards, Strategic planning , 1 comment so farI was in on an interesting conversation a while ago between a strategic planner and a communications specialist in a larger organization. The issue they were discussing was how to communicate to staff the outcomes model which had been developed by the management team for strategic planning purposes. The communications person was saying that at first sight the outcomes model seemed too complex to communicate to staff and that they thought that it should be simplified down to four or so points which they could get through to staff. In fact, as far as outcomes models go, I didn’t think it was a very complex outcomes model at all. I don’t know what happened in the end in that organization - Comms may have worked out a clever and clear way of communicating all of the important elements in the full outcomes model to staff. However, the conversation led me to reflect on the issue of keeping things simple in outcomes modeling. (more…)