Simplifying outcomes terminology - angels dancing on the head of a pin! April 1, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Attribution, Reporting systems, Accountability, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Using the approach, Communicating outcomes models, DoView , trackbackIn the middle ages, churchmen occupied themselves by having long discussions sitting around the fire drinking fine wine and discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It was tough, but someone had to do it! That was until someone called William of Occam came along. He is famous for spoiling the party with something called ‘Occam’s Razor’ - one way of describing the way he operated was that the did not want people to ‘multiply entities beyond necessity’ (see Wikipedia entry). What he was talking about was trying to keep things as simple as possible. This is the approach which is taken within outcomes theory.
Many different terms are used by those dealing with outcomes systems (strategic planning, outcomes, monitoring, evaluation and performance management systems of any type). These terms include: activities, processes, objectives, goals, visions, missions, outputs, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes, long-term outcomes, impacts etc. This diversity of terms often makes for long discussions when people sit down to work out the outcomes for an organization, program or other intervention (unfortunately, in most cases, without the fire or the fine wine!).
Using an ‘Occam’s Razor’ approach, outcomes theory sets itself the task of trying to define the smallest number of terms that are needed in order to do everything that you need to do when working with outcomes. I’ve just set this out in an Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base article called Simplifying terms used when working with outcomes. As described in the article, only four very basic terms are needed in the vast majority of cases, and with only one of them being at all difficult to grasp. The terms are: steps, outcomes, indicators and demonstrably attributable indicators (the only slightly difficult one!).
In fact when you are working with DoView outcomes and evaluation software (Disclosure: I am involved in developing DoView), you can get away with just saying ‘lets put the things you are doing in boxes’ (instead of mentioning steps and outcomes) and ‘let’s use the yellow thingy (the indicator icon which you can insert in DoView) to show how we can measure what’s in your boxes (instead of mentioning indicators). This takes the number of specifically defined technical terms you need to use down to only one - demonstrably attributable indicators! I can tell you, this avoids a lot of discussion about terms which other people routinely get involved in.
It also means that we can have more time for sitting around the fire drinking wine (if we can manage to get away from our computers for long enough!) and discussing things like those discussed in the Occam’s Razor Wikipedia entry. Apparently there is some dispute as to exactly what William did say, was it: ‘Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’; or, ‘Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate’; or the one which applies perfectly to what I’ve been discussing here: ‘Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora‘ - in English - ‘It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer’?
Paul Duignan, PhD
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?