152
تعديل
تغييرات
اذهب إلى التنقل
اذهب إلى البحث
أنشأ الصفحة ب'DECAW!rele$$ Outcome Mapping Useful method because it is not simply about cause and effect. It is not about claiming the achievement of impacts or quantitative outputs O…'
DECAW!rele$$
Outcome Mapping
Useful method because it is not simply about cause and effect. It is not about claiming the achievement of impacts or quantitative outputs
Outcome mapping is about the contributions to outcomes
The focus is on one kind of result: behavioural change – ie the focus is people
Outcomes are defined as changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities, or actions of the people, groups, and organizations with whom a program works directly.
These outcomes can be logically linked to a program's activities, although they are not necessarily directly caused by them
Boundary partners – a key concept in outcome mapping
Boundary partners = those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly and with whom the program anticipates opportunities for influence
Outcome mapping is different from many conventional M&E models
It is not linear 'cause and effect' thinking – rather understands project work as a complex process
It is not bureaucratic
It is not about attributing to yourself the full responsibility for positive impacts – rather looks at relationships
Focus is on improving – not proving
Focus is on understanding – not reporting
Focus is on creating knowledge – not taking credit
Despite all this can be done in such a way that satisfies donors
Outcome mapping moves away from idea that M&E is done to a programme
Rather actively engages the team in the design of a monitoring framework and evaluation plan and promotes self-assessment
Ideally outcome mapping should be done from the planning stages – once the main focus of program has been decided
Vision, mission, goals etc will be framed in such a way that outcome mapping is possible – ie behavioural terms.
Project and program must be sufficiently specific to be able to identify key groups who will be influenced – must be able to identify 'boundary partners' whose behaviours will be influenced by the activities of the project or program
Self-assessment is an integral element of the methodology
Outcome Mapping begins from the premise that the easiest and most reliable place to gather data is from those implementing the program. Most of the data collected in the Outcome and Performance Monitoring stage is self-assessment data generated by the program
Is outcome mapping for you
Outcome mapping depends largely on self-assessment data generated systematically by the program team and the boundary partners
Is there a commitment to self-assessment
Is there a commitment to participatory and learning-based approaches to monitoring and evaluation
Ideally there is team consensus about what the project is etc. Outcome mapping cannot generate consensus but can provide opportunity to discuss and negotiate viewpoints
Outcome mapping best used once a program has decided on its strategic directions or primary program areas – outcome mapping does not provide a means to determine strategic goals, but means to translate strategic plan
Wiling to commit the resources? A design workshop takes approximately three days. The monitoring system will take one staff member about one day per monitoring session. And a few hours from each staff member to contribute data
If there is not already an environment for sharing experiences and honestly reflecting on performance, outcome mapping cannot magically create one. However, it can encourage a more learning-oriented environment by providing a structure for collecting data and for organizing monitoring and evaluation processes
The tools and methods of Outcome Mapping as presented here are designed for use in a facilitated three-day workshop
The manual outlines the workshop process
There are three stages and twelve steps to outcome mapping
They take the program from reaching consensus about the macro-level changes it would like to support to developing a monitoring framework and an evaluation plan
The twelve steps are the elements of an outcome mapping design workshop
Three stages
Stage 1 – Intentional design
Step 1: Vision
Step 2: Mission
Step 3: Boundary Partners
Step 4: Outcome Challenges
Step 5: Progress Markers
Step 6: Strategy Maps
Step 7: Organizational Practices
Helps a program establish consensus on the macro level changes it will help to bring about and plan the strategies it will use
In this stage four questions
Why? - What is the vision to which the program wants to contribute
Who? - Who are the program's boundary partners
What? - What are the changes that are being sought – outcome challenges and progress markers
How? - How will the program contribute to the change process – mission, strategy maps, organizational practices
Stage 2 – Outcome and Performance Monitoring
Step 8: Monitoring Priorities
Step 9: Outcome Journals
Step 10: Strategy Journal
Step 11: Performance Journal
Provides a framework for the ongoing monitoring of the program's actions and the boundary partners' progress toward the achievement of outcomes
Helps a program clarify its monitoring and evaluation priorities
Based largely on systematized self-assessment
Stage 2 provides the following data collection tools for elements identified in the Intentional Design stage: an “Outcome Journal” (progress markers); a “Strategy Journal” (strategy maps); and a “Performance Journal” (organizational practices).
Uses progress markers — a set of graduated indicators of the behavioural change identified in the intentional design stage — to clarify directions with boundary partners and to monitor outcomes
Stage 3 – Evaluation Planning
Step 12: Evaluation planning
Whereas, using the monitoring framework in Stage Two, the program gathers information that is broad in coverage, the evaluations planned in Stage Three assess a strategy, issue, or relationship in greater depth
Helps the program set evaluation priorities so that it can target evaluation resources and activities where they will be most useful
An evaluation plan outlines the main elements of the evaluations to be conducted and, finally, an evaluation design is presented
It should be noted that outcome mapping provides a method to frame, organize, and collect data, but it does not analyze the information. The program will still need to interpret the data in order to make it useful for learning and improvement or to share its experiences or results with others
Workshop Outputs
The outputs of an Outcome Mapping design workshop include
A brief representation of the logic of the macro-level changes to which the program wants to contribute ie vision, mission, boundary partners, and outcome challenges
A set of strategy maps outlining the program's activities in support of each outcome ie strategy maps
A change ladder for each boundary partner to monitor the progress towards the achievement of outcomes ie progress markers, outcome journal
A self-assessment sheet for monitoring what the program is doing internally to manage its work and contribute to change in its boundary partners ie organizational practices, performance journal
A data collection sheet for data on the strategies being employed by the program to encourage change in the boundary partner – strategy journal
An evaluation plan detailing: the priority evaluation topics, issues, and questions; a utilization strategy for the evaluation findings; the person responsible for conducting the evaluation; the date; and the cost ie evaluation plan
[[category: dekka]]
Outcome Mapping
Useful method because it is not simply about cause and effect. It is not about claiming the achievement of impacts or quantitative outputs
Outcome mapping is about the contributions to outcomes
The focus is on one kind of result: behavioural change – ie the focus is people
Outcomes are defined as changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities, or actions of the people, groups, and organizations with whom a program works directly.
These outcomes can be logically linked to a program's activities, although they are not necessarily directly caused by them
Boundary partners – a key concept in outcome mapping
Boundary partners = those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly and with whom the program anticipates opportunities for influence
Outcome mapping is different from many conventional M&E models
It is not linear 'cause and effect' thinking – rather understands project work as a complex process
It is not bureaucratic
It is not about attributing to yourself the full responsibility for positive impacts – rather looks at relationships
Focus is on improving – not proving
Focus is on understanding – not reporting
Focus is on creating knowledge – not taking credit
Despite all this can be done in such a way that satisfies donors
Outcome mapping moves away from idea that M&E is done to a programme
Rather actively engages the team in the design of a monitoring framework and evaluation plan and promotes self-assessment
Ideally outcome mapping should be done from the planning stages – once the main focus of program has been decided
Vision, mission, goals etc will be framed in such a way that outcome mapping is possible – ie behavioural terms.
Project and program must be sufficiently specific to be able to identify key groups who will be influenced – must be able to identify 'boundary partners' whose behaviours will be influenced by the activities of the project or program
Self-assessment is an integral element of the methodology
Outcome Mapping begins from the premise that the easiest and most reliable place to gather data is from those implementing the program. Most of the data collected in the Outcome and Performance Monitoring stage is self-assessment data generated by the program
Is outcome mapping for you
Outcome mapping depends largely on self-assessment data generated systematically by the program team and the boundary partners
Is there a commitment to self-assessment
Is there a commitment to participatory and learning-based approaches to monitoring and evaluation
Ideally there is team consensus about what the project is etc. Outcome mapping cannot generate consensus but can provide opportunity to discuss and negotiate viewpoints
Outcome mapping best used once a program has decided on its strategic directions or primary program areas – outcome mapping does not provide a means to determine strategic goals, but means to translate strategic plan
Wiling to commit the resources? A design workshop takes approximately three days. The monitoring system will take one staff member about one day per monitoring session. And a few hours from each staff member to contribute data
If there is not already an environment for sharing experiences and honestly reflecting on performance, outcome mapping cannot magically create one. However, it can encourage a more learning-oriented environment by providing a structure for collecting data and for organizing monitoring and evaluation processes
The tools and methods of Outcome Mapping as presented here are designed for use in a facilitated three-day workshop
The manual outlines the workshop process
There are three stages and twelve steps to outcome mapping
They take the program from reaching consensus about the macro-level changes it would like to support to developing a monitoring framework and an evaluation plan
The twelve steps are the elements of an outcome mapping design workshop
Three stages
Stage 1 – Intentional design
Step 1: Vision
Step 2: Mission
Step 3: Boundary Partners
Step 4: Outcome Challenges
Step 5: Progress Markers
Step 6: Strategy Maps
Step 7: Organizational Practices
Helps a program establish consensus on the macro level changes it will help to bring about and plan the strategies it will use
In this stage four questions
Why? - What is the vision to which the program wants to contribute
Who? - Who are the program's boundary partners
What? - What are the changes that are being sought – outcome challenges and progress markers
How? - How will the program contribute to the change process – mission, strategy maps, organizational practices
Stage 2 – Outcome and Performance Monitoring
Step 8: Monitoring Priorities
Step 9: Outcome Journals
Step 10: Strategy Journal
Step 11: Performance Journal
Provides a framework for the ongoing monitoring of the program's actions and the boundary partners' progress toward the achievement of outcomes
Helps a program clarify its monitoring and evaluation priorities
Based largely on systematized self-assessment
Stage 2 provides the following data collection tools for elements identified in the Intentional Design stage: an “Outcome Journal” (progress markers); a “Strategy Journal” (strategy maps); and a “Performance Journal” (organizational practices).
Uses progress markers — a set of graduated indicators of the behavioural change identified in the intentional design stage — to clarify directions with boundary partners and to monitor outcomes
Stage 3 – Evaluation Planning
Step 12: Evaluation planning
Whereas, using the monitoring framework in Stage Two, the program gathers information that is broad in coverage, the evaluations planned in Stage Three assess a strategy, issue, or relationship in greater depth
Helps the program set evaluation priorities so that it can target evaluation resources and activities where they will be most useful
An evaluation plan outlines the main elements of the evaluations to be conducted and, finally, an evaluation design is presented
It should be noted that outcome mapping provides a method to frame, organize, and collect data, but it does not analyze the information. The program will still need to interpret the data in order to make it useful for learning and improvement or to share its experiences or results with others
Workshop Outputs
The outputs of an Outcome Mapping design workshop include
A brief representation of the logic of the macro-level changes to which the program wants to contribute ie vision, mission, boundary partners, and outcome challenges
A set of strategy maps outlining the program's activities in support of each outcome ie strategy maps
A change ladder for each boundary partner to monitor the progress towards the achievement of outcomes ie progress markers, outcome journal
A self-assessment sheet for monitoring what the program is doing internally to manage its work and contribute to change in its boundary partners ie organizational practices, performance journal
A data collection sheet for data on the strategies being employed by the program to encourage change in the boundary partner – strategy journal
An evaluation plan detailing: the priority evaluation topics, issues, and questions; a utilization strategy for the evaluation findings; the person responsible for conducting the evaluation; the date; and the cost ie evaluation plan
[[category: dekka]]