A thought piece about the use of OM for developing a theory of change. This piece argues that OM inherently helps programmes develop theories of change through a participatory and creative process that results in shared understanding and tools for learning.
Author: Simon Hearn
Published: Thursday 9 April 2015
Theory of change has become a familiar term in international development, not only with regards to evaluation where it has been familiar for some time, but also with regards to strategy, research and programme development. In some cases theories of change are required by funders in addition to the usual logical frameworks. There have been a series of publications exploring this phenomenon in recent years, including reviews commissioned by Comic Relief, DFID, CARE and The Asia Foundation.
Outcome Mapping was developed before people started talking explicitly about theories of change but, since it is a process that helps teams think through how social systems work and how they can best contribute to those systems, it nonetheless is a theory of change approach.
Theory of change has three meanings in my mind:
What does an OM theory of change look like?
The intentional design stage of OM is where the theory of change is developed. Each step helps to make decisions which clarify the theory of change:
What are the strengths of an OM theory of change?
Actor focused: Because of the focus on behaviour change of boundary partners, the theory of change produced by OM is very much grounded in the realities of specific individuals, groups, organisations or communities. It is clear who is responsible for the changes that are described.
Participatory process: Every step of OM is designed as a participatory process involving the boundary partners and other people involved around the vision. The manual provides facilitation guides for to collaboratively develop each component of the Intentional Design.
Sphere of influence: The changes described by OM are strongly focused in the sphere of influence of an intervention, that is, beyond the outputs which the team has a level of control over, but not outside the limits of their influence where it is not obvious whether the intervention has had an effect.
Fixed and explicit perspective: Rather than trying to map a whole system and creating a 'helicopter view', OM generates a theory of change that has a clear frame of reference - the project, programme or organisation - meaning you have to put yourself in the picture when you are developing it. From this reference, the sphere of control, sphere of influence and sphere of concern can be defined. Being explicit about the frame of reference avoids the conflation of multiple perspectives and gives each perspective space to contribute. Multiple OM theories of change can be nested in order to link frameworks with different reference points.
Provides signposts for early outcomes: The progressive nature of the Progress Markers means that you know where to look for early signs that things are moving in the right direction, providing essential feedback at initial stages of an intervention.
Encourages creative thinking: Much of the time in planning with OM is spent thinking with and about the Boundary Partners; their realities and their visions. This means by the time we get to strategy planning, we have a much stronger sense of how the intervention can best support them, rather than going ahead with the same old activities. The Strategy Map tool helps us to break out of our usual boxes and think about a variety of ways we can support the Boundary Partners.
Goes beyond causal relationships: In OM the relationship between the strategies and the intended outcomes is not one-to-one or causal - there are no neat change pathways. It is expected that the relationship is many to many and often not knowable ahead of time.
Limitations?
The lack of explicit change pathways can make it difficult to identify testable hypotheses (e.g. testing whether and how A leads to B).
There is not a lot of detail to the theory beyond the sphere of influence, unless a nested approach is taken where boundary partners construct an OM framework of their own.
It is difficult to draw the theory of change on one single diagram - it is made up of multiple narratives and tables.
What are your experiences of theories of change with OM?
Use the comments below to share your thoughts. Perhaps you have a view on the strengths and limitations of theories of change with OM.
Related Practitioner Guide sections: