<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>OutcomesBlog.Org</title>
	<link>http://outcomesblog.org</link>
	<description>Dr Paul Duignan on real world strategy, outcomes, evaluation &#38; monitoring</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:47:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Standardized visual evaluation plans - quick and effective</title>
		<description>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 ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/standardized-visual-evaluation-plans-quick-and-effective/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>A Systematic Outcomes Analysis framework for psychotherapy evaluation</title>
		<description>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 ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/use-of-a-systematic-outcomes-analysis-for-psychotherapy/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Avoiding the question: Defining quality assurance versus program evaluation</title>
		<description>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 ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/avoiding-the-question-defining-quality-assurance-versus-program-evaluation/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Indicators, targets, benchmarks - sorting out the terminology</title>
		<description>Many different terms are used in the outcomes and performance management area for measurement and indicators. Often there is considerable confusion about these terms. The short definitions I use from outcomes theory are:

	 Outcomes - causes or effects in the real world. Whether or not such causes can be measured ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/indicators-targets-benchmarks-sorting-out-the-terminology/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Reporting on outcomes to multiple bodies with different outcomes structures</title>
		<description>In a workshop the other day the issue arose of how you deal with the situation where you have to report to a number of different outside organizations on your outcomes. Now, this is not much of a problem where the outside organizations don't make any implicit or explicit demands ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/reporting-your-outcomes-to-bodies-with-different-outcomes-structures/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Indicator Problems stressing out US Patent Office examiners</title>
		<description>In an earlier blog posting on the banking system, I commented on the problems associated with indicators which can be distorted by employees. You can either use such indicators to get an accurate measure of an outcome or use them for incentivizing employees, but not both. Of course, if they're ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/indicator-problems-in-the-us-patent-office/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New outcomes models (program logics) put up on outcomesmodels.org</title>
		<description>We've just put a number of new outcomes models (program logics) up on the outcomesmodels.org site. We're planning to continue adding to the outcomes model collection at outcomesmodels.org for two reasons. The first is to give examples of how models can be drawn in DoView. The more examples people see, ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/new-outcomes-models-put-up-on-outcomesmodelsorg/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Beware lumpers, splitters and slice globblers when you&#8217;re building outcomes models</title>
		<description>When you're drawing outcomes models (program logics, strategy maps, means-ends diagrams, results chains etc), using DoView or other software there're a few things which will come up on a regular basis. The first of these is the personality difference between lumpers and splitters who are present in the room. Lumpers, ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/beware-lumpers-splitters-and-slice-globblers-when-youre-building-outcomes-models/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Get out of the dark - cut outcomes confusion with the five features of outcomes</title>
		<description>

Many terms are used in outcomes systems to describe the elements which go into such systems representing the steps in the causal processes leading from low level activities through to final high-level outcomes. Terms used include: outcomes, intermediate outcomes, outputs, activities, key drivers, key priorities etc. These terms tend to ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/outcomes-confusion-five-features-of-outcomes/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Cutting out parallel processes - the CEO&#8217;s responsibility</title>
		<description>Outcomes systems are a CEO and other managers' way of aligning what happens in an organization with the outcomes it's trying to achieve. It's rather like the Captain on the bridge of a large aircraft carrier needing a well functioning communications system which flows all the way throughout the vessel. ...</description>
		<link>http://outcomesblog.org/index.php/cutting-out-parallel-processes-the-ceos-responsibility/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
