How we indentified shared outcomes

The next stage in developing the model was for the Group to draw out the range and type of outcomes from their work. The aim was to identify common or shared outcomes.

We made sure the Group had a clear understanding of outcomes and how they differed from outputs or activities. The Group considered the 3 key questions below to help come to a common understanding.

Who is changing?
(e.g. the service user, beneficiary, organisation, community)

What is changing?
(e.g. knowledge, skills, environment, feelings)

How will it change?
(e.g. increase, improve, reduce)

 

Exploring common outcomes

Each participant was asked to think about the outcomes of their work and put their outcomes onto post-it notes, one outcome per post-it. Working in pairs, participants discussed each other's outcomes and made sure they were "change led", rather than "activity based" (in other words, an output).

Participants were then asked to stick their outcomes on the wall or on a flip chart. Through group discussion we clustered together those that were similar. We looked for common ways to express these clustered outcomes. At this point the outcomes didn't have to be perfect; Group members understood that they could be "cleaned up" when we began to make the links to activities and beneficiaries

 

How we sequenced the outcomes

Sequencing these collected outcomes was an important stage in developing the model because it consolidated the work of the Group. This next stage brought all the thinking and discussions together and started linking outcomes to activities. By ordering or sequencing the outcomes the group created causal chains, in other words, began to understand "What leads to what?"

To assist the Group, we considered this simple example:

model4_sequence

pdf symbolDownload a PDF of this model.

We used lots of flip-chart paper and post-it notes in this process. We moved the post-it notes around to reflect the Group's view about how activities led to outcomes at different times. We ended up with a very rough model that the facilitator took away and cleaned up. This was circulated and further refined at the next meeting.

 

How we identified external factors

External factor are those things over which you have little or no control. So for example an external factor which may affect your work could be short term funding or a change in policy direction.

The Group was asked to consider the outcomes and discuss these questions:

Following these discussions, Group members were able to identify the external factors that would be potential threats or opportunities

 

How we refined the model

The draft model that the Group produced contained a summarised situation or needs statement, the sequence of inputs, activities and outcomes, assumptions and external factors. Refining the model was an important part of the process, holding onto the important links that Group members had already identified.

Members of the Group were asked to reflect at different times on the model; giving them the opportunity to clarify thinking and question the content. Over a number of sessions we:

model5_evaluation

pdf symbolDownload a PDF of this model.

 

Evidencing the model

One of the reasons for developing a logic model is that it gives you a pathway of cause and effect. From here you can begin to identify the things that would evidence whether you are making progress and making a difference. The Group was aware that they could have focused on any number of areas to evaluate and we used the table below to facilitate discussion on this but Explaining the Difference focused on the ways of measuring the outcomes identified in the model.

 

Measuring the outcomes using indicators

The Group explored the nature of outcomes and identified that some outcomes were easy to measure because they are "hard" i.e. tangible because there is something that you can count. For example if the outcome is to increase employment, the indicator of this would be the number of beneficiaries who have moved into employment.

Some outcomes are "soft" and are more difficult to measure. With these you need to set proxy indicators. These are things that might reasonably show that your outcome is happening. For example, if the outcome is to increase young people's self confidence, an indicator might be whether a young person is able to participate in group activities or express their views clearly.

The indicators should be able to show whether things have
stayed the same, improved or worsened. This means looking
for levels such as:

The consensus from our Group discussions was that a baseline measurement was needed in order to compare progress. So for example, in working with learners, you may gather information on their level of skills, knowledge or ability at the start of the programme, so that you can measure their progress at different stages and at the end of the programme.