Get out of the dark - cut outcomes confusion with the five features of outcomes October 14, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Using the approach, Outcomes models , trackback
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 appear in outcomes models (program logics, strategy maps, ends-means diagrams, results chains etc.). In models which are drawn vertically, they normally appear down the left-hand side. There’s often confusion as to the exact distinctions between these terms and many a happy hour is spent by those trying to implement outcomes systems struggling to work out what a particular step should be called and exactly where it should go in an outcomes model.
Outcomes theory can help clarify this issue by using the five major features of outcomes identified in the theory. Outcomes or the steps which lead to them can be: influencable, controllable, measurable, attributable and accountable. Thinking about it in this way can save you a lot of time and confusion when working with outcomes systems.
The five steps are summarized on the Systematic Outcomes Analysis site. They are as follows:
- Inflencable - able to be influenced by a player
- Controllable - only influenced by one particular player
- Measurable - able to be measured
- Attributable - able to be attributed to one particular player (i.e. proved that only one particular player changed it)
- Accountable - something that a particular player will be rewarded or punished for.
If anyone ever asks you to specify your outcomes, ask them to tell you which type of outcome they are wanting from you specified in terms of these five outcomes theory features. It’ll usually save you a lot of wasted effort and if you’re lucky you’ll impress those you ask by showing that you’re heavily into outcomes thinking. Maybe they’ll even get off you case for a couple of weeks and pester someone else a while about their outcomes.
If you don’t do this you can get caught in what I call the ‘outcomes see-saw.’ It starts like this - someone in a control organization (or in a control position in your organization) asks you to send them your outcomes. You give them a set of high-level outcomes which, say, have the features that they are influencable and measurable, but not necessarily the other three features listed above (controllable, attributable or accountable). The powers-that-be come back to you and say: ‘thanks for that, but we were wanting ones which can be directly attributed to you’. At that stage, depending on your personality, you’ll either mutter under your breath: ‘why didn’t you tell me that in the first place’ or you’ll call it out over your shoulder as you stamp off back down the corridor from the corporate services department. You now spend another two weeks and after that giving them a list of outcomes which are attributable to you. This sometimes satisfies them, but often they’ll come back at you and say: ‘no we don’t want those, those are just your outputs, we want your actual outcomes’.
If this happens you’re running up against the problem that it may be impossible to find non-output attributable outcomes in your particular case. But I’ll blog on that later as it deserves a few paragraphs of its own. The situation is often made even more confusing because those who are demanding you send them your outcomes are using different words for outcomes or the steps which produce them. These terms include terms such as key drivers, or intermediate outcomes, or high-level priority activity levels, or whatever else struck their fancy when they thought up the system.
Anyway, you may want to escape spending your life running back and forwards down corridors delivering different sorts of confused outcomes sets to people who you suspect are as confused as you but who’re just pretending to know what they’re talking about. If you do, then simply demand that whatever outcomes they want are clearly specified in terms of the five features listed above.
It’s important to note that an outcome or step being influencable is different from it being attributable. For an outcome or step to be potentially or hypothetically influencable by an intervention organization simply means that it’s believed that the activity of the intervention organization will result in the higher-level outcome occurring. However, just by claiming it is influencable, you are not necessarily claiming that you can prove that the intervention organization has, in a particular instance, actually caused the higher-level outcome to occur. It you have such proof then the outcome becomes both influencable and attributable in respect of the intervention organization. It also logically follows that in order to have established attribution the outcome or step will have had to be measurable - if you weren’t able to measure it you would not be able to prove that the intervention organization changed it. [I know it seems a little complex, but hell, its a lot easier than most accounting theory and people seem to be able to get their heads around that when there are advantages in doing so].
Anyway, escape from outcomes set madness and get everyone to specify the outcomes or steps they want in terms of which of these five features they require. Once you’ve done this, there’s no reason why you can’t go back to using the terms which exist in your outcomes system (e.g. intermediate outcomes, key drivers etc.) it’s just that now when you use them, you’ll be crystal clear as to the type of outcomes or steps people are wanting you to sent to them.
Paul Duignan (outcomesblog.org)
Comments»
[…] Outcomes - causes or effects in the real world. Whether or not such causes can be measured is a separate issue (see previous blog for features of outcomes) […]
A big thank you for this blog - I wish I’d read it in my previous role, where I lived the exact situation you describe! At least I’ll know where to turn if & when I come up against this type of confusion again. Thanks.
Great Vicky, it is a good example of where a little clear theory can help sort out confusing real world situations where people are not clear on the theory.