Focus of Outcome Mapping Sphere of Control Sphere of Influence Sphere of Interest Introduce presentation: The way a focus on measuring ‘impact’ plays out is not suitable in the context of many projects and programmes -> we need to recognise the limits of a project’s influence, and shape our planning, learning, and accountability functions around “outcomes”, which are further ‘upstream’ from impacts. Looking from the point of view of a project, we see Sphere of control = operational environment Sphere of Influence = Relationships & Interactions Sphere of Interest = social, economical, environmental states & trends DIRECT CONTROL DIRECT INFLUENCE INDIRECT INFLUENCE This relates to concepts you may be familiar with from the log frame, along the results chain through to intended impacts. The premise is -> we can’t control everything we’d like to see change -> this is not something unscientific: complexity theory (and common sense!) tells us that real, sustainable change involves the combination of a number of different factors, and is a product of the interaction of many different actors and stakeholders -> Outcome Mapping is concerned with the level where a programme has direct influence Complexity cross-reference: Systems with multiple actors, inter-related and connected with each other and with their environment Various forces interacting with each other, interdependent (e.g. political and social dimensions) In these situations, change occurs because of the interaction of multiple actors and factors; can’t be controlled by one programme Very difficult to predict what ‘impacts’ might be achieved in advance; SDOIC means inherent unpredictability, that isn’t unscientific but based on careful investigation Common mistakes include trying to deliver clear, specific, measurable outcomes; better to work with inevitable uncertainty than to plan based on flimsy predictions Russell Ackoff : 3 kinds of problems: Mess, problem and puzzle. MESS has no defined form or structure, not a clear understanding of what’s wrong, often involves economic, technological, ethical and political issues. Common mistake is to carve off part of a mess, deal with it as a problem and solve it as if it was a puzzle (as the simple causal chain from inputs to impact tries to do) -> need to recognise messy realities Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts LFA focus OM focus RBM focus

The Limits of Influence community Sphere of Interest Local government Sphere of Influence Programme Sphere of Control Here are spheres of control, influence and interest again. For the project, we have the various stakeholders, partners, ultimate beneficiaries, etc. [labelled as illustrative example] BOUNDARY PARTNERS ARE: Those individuals, groups, or organisations with whom the program Interacts with directly to effect change Anticipates opportunities for influence Engages in mutual learning -> With outcome mapping, the focus for learning and accountability are the boundary partners. plan, monitor, and evaluate our efforts around them -> look for changes in their behaviour that would contribute to the wider change you’d like to see Behaviour is defined as… Actions Activities Interactions Relationships …of your Boundary Partners Complexity cross-reference: Emphasises the importance of relationships; in a complex systems relationships are key for: - carrying information (central to many feedback effects) Constitutive of power in a system Co-evolution. “co-evolution” is where the evolution of one domain or entity is partially dependent on the evolution of other related domains and entities. It’s a long-term process of interactions and mutual influence. Concept comes from biology, e.g. bees and flowers. Warning from co-evolution in ‘homeostasis’- about how trying to change just one element in a system often causes the system to adapt to keep certain key variables constant. For example, introduction of the hoover didn’t reduce the amount of drudgery for women in many countries; lead to higher standards of cleanliness. Beneficiaries Stakeholders Boundary Partners

Focus of Outcome Mapping Program influence decreases Local partners / beneficiaries ownership increases Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts Now, why is it important to support boundary partners and measure your influence on them? Here we see the results chain from input, through activities, to outputs, which then lead to outcomes (behavioural changes in our boundary partners) and in turn, hopefully, to impact on the target beneficiaries. At the inputs level, partners have least influence (project design, location, timing etc), but then as funding flows partners and beneficiaries become more committed and have more prominent roles. For the outcomes of the project to lead to long term, large scale, sustainable benefits (i.e. impact) local ownership and influence need to become effective and dominant. So, a difficulty exists: the more successful a project is, the sooner and the more its influences disappear Why Behaviour Change? Measurable, observable and influencable not about claiming a change is down just to one programme, but rather encoruaging supporting local structures and contributing to processes of change; Sympathetic to the difference between influence and control, attribution and contribution Outcome Mapping

OM and the influence of research on policy: a case study ‘Research Beyond Borders’: International Livestock Research Institute (Kenya) applied OM retrospectively to 5 case studies Looking at how research outputs contribute to development outcomes. This had been done either through counting citations or socio-economic indicators OM was useful because: Sensitive to the complexity of actors and factors that transform research results into social, economic or ecological benefits; OM is sensitive to the long-term nature of sustainable social change OM helped to identify A number of common partners and strategies How outputs are generated and translated into outcomes The kind of results achieved in ILRI initiatives An example of the influence of research on policy: The context of BRP illustrates the difficulty of attribution, the multiplicity of actors, the long-term nature of change, An area my department has worked a long time on; found OM to be very useful, include it in our approach Counting citations in peer reviewed journals: publication and dissemination will not alleviate poverty. Looking at socio-economic indicators: not useful because problem of attribution, and of diffuse + long term nature of change – the ‘impact’ of a particular intervention, especially with research on policy, will not be felt properly by beneficiaries for a number of years (e.g. local government ownership of research first)

OM and the log frame A reality check: people used to using LFA, a tool with real practical value, many donors insist on a log frame. So, an important issue is how to integrate OM and the log frame, or in many instances, integrate principles from OM into a log frame? One example: VECO Indonesia Works on the promotion of sustainable agriculture, including institutional development Had used logframes to guide their work- was criticised by internal+external evaluations+studies. wasn’t allowing for flexibility, learning, sustainable change Made an OM framework, but their donors changed their mind: Belgian government insisted all funded NGO projects used log frames The decision was made to go halfway between OM and the log frame, using OM largely for their (internal) planning a system to translate OM elements into reports for log frame structured the programme around 4 main Objectives; For each of these objectives they identified the relevant boundary partners, and for the boundary partners outcome challenges, progress markers, and strategy maps. So, log frame where aim for behavioural change, and build planning around boundary partners Much more work going on in this area. E.g. Daniel Roduner drafting a synthesis model of OM and logframe, e.g. paper exploring different philosophical modes of understanding logframe: taking a more ‘interpretivist’ stance means looking at behaviour change, limits to influence, easier to M&E.