OutcomesBlog.Org

Is it the role of an evaluator to always ‘value’ what they are evaluating?

Paul Duignan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:10:16 +0000

I’ve had occasion recently to need to think about whether or not the notion of ‘valuing’ something is always an essential part of evaluation. To question this may seem a heresy to some evaluators who see this as the defining aspect of evaluation (for instance as opposed to ‘research’ where they don’t see such valuing as needing to take place). I’m not definite in my thoughts on this issue and below just want to float the argument which has been rattling around in my head for a while and which I have not had a chance to get down in writing to see if it can be shot down - in which case I will change my mind. (more…)

Theory of Change Versus Theory of Action

Paul Duignan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:54:20 +0000

What’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…)

The evolution of the logic model

Paul Duignan — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:55:33 +0000

I’ve just posted an article on the evolution of the logic model within evaluation. Over the last couple of decades, increasing numbers of evaluators have started using logic models. For those not familiar with what logic models are - they are simply tabular or visual representations of all of the lower-level steps needed to achieve high-level outcomes for a program, organization or other intervention. They go by different names, for instance: program logics, intervention logics, results maps, theories of change, program theories, results hierarchies, strategy maps, end-means diagrams etc.). A traditional way of drawing logic models has evolved (known as the inputs, outputs, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes structured logic model) which often attempts to restrict logic models to a single page. However, many evaluators are now breaking away from the constraints of this traditional format and exploring various alternative ways of representing logic models. (more…)

How many evaluators does it take to change a light bulb?

Paul Duignan — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:48:10 +0000

In response to a series of ‘How many evaluators does it take to change a light bulb?’ jokes on the evaluators list EVALTALK, I whipped up an outcomes model (logic model) for a Changing Light Bulbs Project (some days one does wonder if this is what evaluators do for fun, it must be some sort of illness!).

Anyway here it is http://www.outcomesmodels.org/models/lightbulb62.html

Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my Outcomes Blog; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter).

Developing an M&E plan using a visual approach

Paul Duignan — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:07:19 +0000

On various lists I am on I often see requests by people wanting to develop what is called an M&E plan. This terminology is often used in the international development area. It refers to a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. The way these requests are made makes me think that the way you should monitor and evaluate different projects varies a great deal. (more…)

Christmas is over - back to blogging

Paul Duignan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:34:33 +0000

I’ve been quiet for some time on the blogging front as I’ve been developing a number of resources on outcomes modeling (logic modeling), evaluation and related topics. Now Christmas is over and I’m back to work I’ll be blogging in the next few weeks about these resources. I’ll also be blogging about DoView 2.0 which has just been released. It’s full of new features suggested by users and I’ve been building a range of really cool outcomes models with clients using the beta version and using that for input into its development. (more…)

Getting outcomes creds and saving time!

Paul Duignan — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:34:27 +0000

Public 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…)

Using an outcomes modeling approach to action research

Paul Duignan — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:48:26 +0000

Will get back to blogging on the Australasian Evaluation Society Conference when I get a moment (may not be for a few days). In the meantime had to prepare an article about using outcomes modeling as a basic tool within an action research approach. Because outcomes modeling - developing visual outcomes models (like a type of logic model, or theory of change model) - according to the outcomes theory set of standards for building such models is a generic process, such models can be used for a wide range of purposes. They can, for instance, be used within an action research approach. Action research is an approach which attempts to work in cycles of research/action/research. It has the great virtue of ensuring that research is connected to action and action is connected to research.
(more…)

The Taxi Driver and ‘why don’t you just measure outcomes’ - on the way to AES conference

Paul Duignan — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0000

On 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…)

Can an exhaustive list of impact evaluation designs be developed, or is my mission on this futile?

Paul Duignan — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:07:16 +0000

I 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…)