1 / 21

Outcome Mapping

Outcome Mapping. Presentation for Olof Palme International Center, Tirana, 1.11.2007. Steve Powell & Ivona Čelebičić proMENTE social research, Sarajevo. Aims for this session. What is OM? What is new/right/exciting about OM? Our project: experiences from Bosnia and Herzegovina Discussion

sage
Download Presentation

Outcome Mapping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outcome Mapping Presentation for Olof Palme International Center, Tirana, 1.11.2007 Steve Powell & Ivona ČelebičićproMENTE social research, Sarajevo

  2. Aims for this session • What is OM? • What is new/right/exciting about OM? • Our project: experiences from Bosnia and Herzegovina • Discussion • What is in it for you

  3. Who are we • Steve Powell & Ivona ČelebičićproMENTE social research, Sarajevo • Sources for OM: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE www.idrc.ca • See: www.promente.org/OM

  4. What is OM? • An approach to project planning, monitoring and evaluation • A new, soft alternative to replace or complement LFA, RBM etc • A new paradigm/way of thinking. A backlash? • An M&E tool for internal use by the implementing agency? • A tool for external evaluators? • A box full of ideas for everybody?

  5. Game

  6. Problems with traditional approaches

  7. Logframe vs. OM Vision Other actors? ? Boundary partners: changes in attitudes, behaviour, system Implementing agency: strategy

  8. Boundary partners: changes in attitudes, behaviour, system • Boundary partners ≠ beneficiaries! • (might be, do not have to be) • There can be more than one group of boundary partners • Development work is really about leveraging the influence of a limited number of key partners … • … focus is NOT on the stakeholders with whom the boundary partners interact • changing consciousness, ways of working … • … in service of a vision

  9. Example Vision The partners become part of a new, younger, gender-equal generation in politics, who through their influence in their political parties initiate a change in the direction of everyday political issues – away from national/ethnic issues towards themes which respect democracy and human rights including gender rights and which will contribute to social prosperity in the long term. …. … …. … Other actors: political parties, other young politicians … Boundary partners: young politiciansOutcome challenge: Empowered young politicians influence the change of the everyday politics in their parties. Recognized need for improvement in the areas selected in the party modules, continuous activities on the empowerment of youth engaged in politics. Implementing agency: Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly

  10. OM: 12 steps Considering all the dimensions of strategy Helping the implementing partner to learn Internal M &E

  11. Progress marker ladders Vision Outcome challenge 2 Outcome challenge 1 Love to see Like to see Expect to see Boundary partner 1 Boundary partner 2

  12. “Official” OM and the spirit of OM • OM is available in bits ...

  13. Our project in B&H: 1 donor, 3 framework partners, 6 implementing partners, 6 projects

  14. Aims of our OM project in B&H • Explorative evaluation of the six projects • Sida-funded civil society programming: lessons on sustainability • Exploration of OM as a tool

  15. Conclusions & Recommendations • What do you think? • What is OM NOT good for?

  16. “Official OM” • could/should be adopted by donors right from the project application stage • Otherwise, difficult to implement • Donors have to lower the measurement bar: from attribution to contribution • Donors have to want to help organisations to learn, at the cost of demonstrating effectiveness • Should be done internally -> Time constraints -> focus on limited, quality information

  17. Using the “spirit of OM” informally • can really change the way CSOs think about how they work • can usefully influence planning & implementation

  18. Take-home-point • In your planning and monitoring… • agree on a limited number of boundary partner groups • … and try to focus a “ladder” of changes in their behaviour/ consciousness • … which you would like or love to see

  19. Practise! • Remember your vision… • Identify 1-3 boundary partner groups • Write an outcome challenge for ONE boundary partner group • Write progress markers for that outcome challenge

  20. Identify 1-3 boundary partner groups • Those individuals, groups, & organizations with whom a program interacts directly to effect change & with whom the program can anticipate some opportunities for influence.

  21. Write an outcome challenge for ONE boundary partner group Outcome Challenge Statements: • Describe the boundary partner`s contributions to the vision • Describe the ideal behavioural changes • Are about a single boundary partner

More Related