KEY PRINCIPLES OF THINKING SYSTEMICALLY

1. KEYPRINCIPLES OF THINKINGSYSTEMICALLY Inter-relationships Perspectives Boundaries

2. INTER-RELATIONSHIPS • What is the structure of the inter-relationships within a situation? • What are the processes between elements of that structure? • What are the patterns that emerge from those processes, with what consequences for whom? • Why does this matter? To whom? In what context?

3. INTER-RELATIONSHIPS Benefits to Outcome Mapping ? At the “concept” level Few In terms of particular systems methods Some methods that help with dynamic modeling

4. PERSPECTIVES STAKEHOLDERS Things as well as people STAKES Motivations FRAMINGS Understandings World views

5. PERSPECTIVES In terms of stakeholders and stakes : • What are the different ways in which a situation can be framed? • How could these different framings affect the way in which people judge the success of projects and program • How will people’s different framings affect their behavior, and thus the behavior of projects and the program, especially when things go wrong from their perspective? With what result and significance?

6. PERSPECTIVES Benefits to Outcome Mapping ? At the “concept” level Stronger understanding of behaviour via use of stakes and framing In terms of particular systems methods Soft systems methodology - framing Cultural-Historical Activity - motivation

7. BOUNDARIES Which inter-relationships are privileged and which are marginalised? With what effect on whom? What perspectives are privileged and which are marginalised? With what effect on whom? How can the ethical, political and practical consequences of these boundary choices be managed, especially those decisions that cause harm or have the potential to cause harm?

8. BOUNDARIES Benefits to Outcome Mapping ? At the “concept” level Stronger concept of what “boundary partner” actually means beyond stakeholder position In terms of particular systems methods Critical Systems Heuristic Various dialectical methods

9. OM & Systems Approaches Inter-relationships : Similar Perspectives : Both multiple-perspectives OM primary focus on stakeholders rather than stakes and framings Boundaries : OM boundaries about “influence” Systems boundaries about “position” and “value”

10. Reflections on use and utility of OM • Combination of process and outcome monitoring • well suited for programmes with entangled outcomes • planning, monitoring and evaluation are conceived as cyclical • Appropriate for interventions focusing on outcomes • can be applied at project or program level • requires that intervening agents see themselves as part of the change process • Best used at the beginning of an intervention • helps identifying who is affected, how, through which activities • permits designing a M&E system for documenting outcomes

11. Pro´s / Advantages of OM • Helps clarifying the roles of different stakeholders • identifying various spheres (control, influence, interest) • strengthening ownership and commitment • Useful for interventions where capacity building plays a major role • produces meaningful monitoring data (behaviour changes) • highlights the human dimension in tracking progress • Well suited for interventions involving complex change processes, where • progress relies on interaction of many different actors • causality and future change are hard to forecast • Integrates learning and reflection in the design of interventions • space and processes for learning and reflection are put in place • requires high M&E capacity from managers and field staff

12. Con´s / Challenges of OM • Demands for data collection (journals) can be high, challenging when • It cannot be integrated in existing activities or work routines • faced with different monitoring and accountability requirements • intervention`s capacities for monitoring are limited • Focus on boundary partners neglects relevance of other actors • more distant partners in a change progress, wider structure of actors • aspects of networking and interrelationships • Difficult and time consuming to accomodate, especially for newcomers • comprehensive package with a precise sequence • specific typologies and specialized terminology

13. Fusion of OM and Logical Framework • Integration of LF´s results-oriented focus with OM´s process-oriented learning pathways: • Focus: Orientation towards an overall goal and explicit consideration of changes in behaviour of project partners • Distribution of roles and responsibilities of development actors can be determined and displayed directly in the logic model • Should only be applied in situations where it can provide added-value: • need to harmonise between various levels • when information for various partners or for different needs and accountabilities is required • if an intervention should be improved in an LFA environment

14. Outcome Mapping and Logical Framework Fusion Model (Ambrose, K. and D. Roduner)