Visual model of what I’m trying to do with my outcomes work April 28, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes theory, Using the approach, Outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Blog info , 2commentsThought that I would apply a taste of my own medicine to my own work, so I drew a visual outcomes model of what it is that I’m trying to do with my work in the outcomes area. It is here. At the top is my high level outcome ‘Make working with outcomes, monitoring, evaluation etc. easier’ and below that is all of the lower-level steps I am using to get to this high-level outcome. I have included hyperlinks out to the various web sites where I am attempting to do the things listed in the lower-level steps.
Paul Duignan, PhD
Outcomes and Evaluation Blog (OutcomesBlog.org)
Social Innovation, evaluation and outcomes April 6, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Impact evaluation, Outcomes theory & politics, Research influening policy, Outcomes theory, Using the approach, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes models, DoView , add a commentI attended a launch of the New Zealand national Center for Social Innovation last night. Geoff Mulgan from the Young Foundation (a similar center in the U.K.) talked about social innovation. The social innovation movement is about getting stakeholders and sectors together to do things differently to achieve better social outcomes. Already a dynamic movement, it has recently received a shot in the arm from the global economic melt-down - traditional ways of doing things are increasingly being questioned and people are looking for new solutions. A number of points made by Geoff and in the subsequent discussion are particularly relevant to outcomes and evaluation were: (more…)
Using visual outcomes models to describe and communicate best practice April 3, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Research influening policy, Strategic planning, Communicating outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Outcomes models, Using the approach, DoView , 1 comment so farYesterday I blogged about what is meant by the term ‘best practice’. As I said then, I think that there is some conceptual confusion out there about it, and I am not sure that I have yet tidied it up my own thinking about it in a satisfactory way. However, the great thing is that regardless of how we define it, the idea of identifying the types of things that people currently call best practice and communicating these between programs is a great idea. The most difficult thing in many cases is to get best practice actually applied to on the ground after we have identified it. I have put up an Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base article (link to the article is at the bottom of this posting) on the issue suggesting that an efficient way of describing and communicating best practice may be to use visual outcomes models (a type of logic model). (more…)
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 , add a commentIn 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. (more…)
Lines, arrows and ‘Engineering’ solutions March 20, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Using the approach, Easy Outcomes, DoView , add a commentAt a national philanthropy conference I presented at this week I demonstrated using the Easy Outcomes approach as a way for grantees to communicate what they are doing in their programs to their philanthropic funders. The visual models underlying the Easy Outcomes approach are drawn in DoView outcomes and evaluation software. The particular example I used was a user-friendly mock-up which I will put up on the internet in a week or so. It uses the latest version of DoView (1.17) which is planned for release in a couple of weeks - it is very cool in that it allows images to be inserted into a DoView file - really bringing outcomes models (logic models) to life. Check out this initial mock-up here (it will also let you drill-down with a hyperlink ‘hop-to’ beneath text, indicators, evaluation questions etc.). There were lots of positive comments about the model, including one community group woman saying ”Hallelujah, finally someone has started talking our language and realzing that we like working with pictures and images not just tables and text’. However, one other person did comment that they though the model looked rather like an ‘engineering approach’. (more…)
Developing a comprehensive sector visual outcomes model January 20, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Indicators, Reporting systems, Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Uncategorized , 2comments
In earlier blog postings I’ve talked about the use of large scale outcomes models for various purposes such as overall policy development, evidence-based practice and monitoring and evaluation. The next version of DoView outcomes and evaluation software [[Disclosure: I am involved in the development of DoView] is going to allow images to be included in DoView files and in the web page models which can be created within DoView and then put up on the web. A mock-up of what parts of a visual sector plan using the upcoming version of DoView could look like is available. This will be a no cost update to DoView which is planned for release in February 2009.
Top to bottom or left to right? Logic model conventions January 8, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Communicating outcomes models, Using the approach, Outcomes models, DoView , 4comments
There are various conventions for visualizing logic models (or outcomes models as I call them to include the wide range of different models evaluators work with - program logics, logic models, outcomes hierarchies, theories of change, program theories, strategy maps, ends-means diagrams, results chains etc.)
I have put up a knol article in the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base which talks about why I think there are advantages to a top to bottom rather than a left to right approach to drawing logic models. Of course, if you are in an organization where you are told to draw left to right logic models, then go for it and some people who use DoView software use it to draw left to right models. The article is here. (more…)
Drawing logic models (outcomes models) January 5, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory, Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes models, DoView, Uncategorized , 1 comment so far
I have just finished a substantial article on what I call outcomes models. They go by names such as: logic models, program logics, program theories, theories of change, ends-means diagram, strategy maps etc. and are used widely through evaluation.
In the article I attempt to go beyond the traditional received conventions about logic models which I think are usually unexamined in ‘how to’ books and much of the discussion of logic models.
The essence of my argument is that:
- There are six possible purposes for outcomes models - the first being to provide a picture of ‘what it is believed causes what to happen’ - what I call a ‘full’ outcomes model.
- Because people attempt to also use models to indicate measurability and demonstrability (attribution of changes in high-level steps and outcomes to a program) they end up truncating their models so much (limiting them to the measurable or the demonstrable) that they fail to achieve the first purpose of creating a picture of a ‘full’ model. Measurement and demonstrability (attribution) should be done after the model has been built.
- Most ‘technologies of representation’ - tables, single page diagrams etc - are hopeless at representing anything like a ‘full’ model of the causality behind a program. Hence they attract attacks as inadequate representations of programs.
- Models should be drawn in logic model software such as DoView so as to be able to represent full models (as large as they need to be, anything linked to anything else) and then measurement and demonstrability (attribution) can be mapped back onto them. This means they can achieve the purposes of the traditional conventional approaches to logic models without having their limitations.
If you have a moment, check out the article, any feedback appreciated. The article is here.
Paul Duignan PhD
Using large visualized outcomes models in policy development December 18, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Strategic planning, Communicating outcomes models, Outcomes models, DoView , 1 comment so far
I recently presented a paper to the European Evaluation Society Conference in Lisbon on the use of large visualized outcomes models in policy development. The conference theme was on ways that evaluation could contribute to policy development. I see visualized outcomes models as one way that evaluators can contribute. Check out the full paper here. Evaluators may see themselves as ideally suited to contribute to high level policy making, however, regardless of evaluators’ views, the powerful players already involved in policy development (stakeholders, politicians, senior public servants, policy analysts, economists and others) need to be convinced that the evaluation discipline can add real value to the policy making process. What actual value can evaluation add? (more…)
Sharing the pain - crazy indicators, targets and funder reporting systems December 4, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Indicators, Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Accountability, Measurement, Easy Outcomes, Using the approach, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView , add a comment
This blog post is a follow-up to an earlier posting on my blog. In a comment on that posting, M&Egirl outlined problems she was having with a funder demanding targets that are meaningless and asked for more comment on this obsession with targets on the part of funders.
The program she is working on is a Gender Related Violence program, which for the sake of this discussion I’ll presume involves women who have been subject to gender related violence receiving some sort of intervention to help them be safe and move beyond the trauma they have suffered. Because the issue of indicators and targets is such an important issue I thought that I’d do a further posting on it. If you have a moment, have a quick read of the original posting and M&Egirl’s comment before reading this blog posting. (more…)