Theories of Change & MandE

Since my post on “Logic beyond the Logical framework“, we’ve now almost finished consolidating the work of the 4 different groups and putting it altogether into one MandE matrix.

The first step was bringing together the theories of change as viewed by the different stakeholder groups into one Programme theory. This is what it looked like (different colors represent changes related to different stakeholder groups and the arrows illustrate linkages/relationships between changes – both within stakeholder groups and between them).

From this – the Prog. was then also able to revise their logframe by clustering the outputs, outcomes (changes in behavior) and overall impacts from the diagram – which feed into the first column of the logframe. The items in red are internal/external factors that may influence the success of this theory. These feed into the 4th column of the logframe (risks/assumptions). However, they are also used to identify ways in which to strengthen the logic and reduce the probability of the risks (the green boxes are recommendations for changes to the theory). **Remember – this wasn’t a planning workshop ..if it was – we would have started from the top (impacts) and worked our way down. Instead, we were simply trying to ensure that everyone had a clear understanding of the strategy already designed and, if necessary, identify areas in which it needed to be strengthened. 

As I mentioned before – we also used this to develop the M&E matrix. Each step in the theory of change needs to be monitored, as does the relationships between them as well as the internal/external factors.  So – when thinking about information required for performance questions such as “To what extent were the intended impacts contributed to, why, why not?” – the programme stakeholders referred to the theory of change they mapped out (e.g. changes in % of income originating from sales of agricultural products in households participating directly in the Prog.). This part of the M&E matrix looks something like this: 

The next step is to think through & plan for actual data collection. At impact level, it was felt that the data/information should be collected through both participatory impact assessments & externally conducted impact assessments. Here’s an example of the part of the matrix that relates to this: 

 

 

 

Last, but far from least,  will be information use – defining and planning for the forums & other mechanisms that will be put in place in order to enable critical reflection on and the use of the data/information collected for decision making. 

 

Concept Mapping – A tool for Theory of Change

For months, no years (!) I’ve been looking for a good software that would help in documenting electronically the theories of change that are put together in planning & MandE workshops. I can’t afford the high end software that’s out there (SmartDraw/ConceptDraw/Visio amongst others) so I’ve been using Excel – which is a little cumbersome, but ok. 

Then, yesterday, I came across Concept Mapping which I found on another bloggers site. I find the thinking behind it extremely useful and insightful in my work and the software a drea

m come true (& it’s free!)! I highly recommend to anyone wanting to map out Programme strategies etc.!  

Many many thanks to the blogger at http://pkab.wordpress.com/about/! 

 

 

Logic beyond the Logical Framework?

The ASSP/ASDP-L workshop in Zanzibar was an M&E planning workshop & not a strategic planning workshop. However, we could hardly start talking about monitoring until everyone in the room (including ourselves) was clear about what the Programme was expected to do, achieve – and therefore what should be monitored.

While I have used the Theory of Change to start off M&E planning workshop before, there were a couple of things we did differently this time that I feel worked quite well & I’d like to share. 

Logframes, as many of us know, are often developed by some external “expert” and may not necessarily make a lot of sense to those actually immersed in implementing the project. Also – there are times when the neat & tidy “component clumping” of activities, outputs & outcomes is very far removed from the intertwined nature of a project’s reality.

In a bid not to re-live challenges we faced before – we decided to ask individuals from similar stakeholder groups to work together to map out the logic of the ASSP Programme from their perspective. In other words – we asked them to:

• Identify the services/products (“huduma”) that they as a stakeholder group were going to receive from the project; and then
• Map out the changes in behavior that were expected to occur as a result of these huduma; and
• How the changes in behavior would eventually contribute to changes in peoples lives

The facilitators probed and challenged the participants as they carried out this exercise – reminding them that changes in one stakeholder group could affect the behavior of another (and vice versa).

Finally, the participants were asked to identify and include in their “maps” internal/external factors that could have an effect on their theories of change; as well as recommendations for changing this theory (in this case we focused only on negative effects because of time).
What came out of this exercise was a very “rich picture”!

Asking stakeholders to focus on the huduma they were going to receive;

• Ensured that they knew exactly what services/products to expect from the Programme and the changes in behavior (“ma badiliko ya tabia“) expected as a consequence;
• Provided an opportunity for them to question and recommend changes to this theory, which in turn;
• Started to build a sense of ownership of the Programme; and
• Reduced the scope of what they needed to think through, as well as allowed them to think through an area they knew most about – resulting in much more detail than you would normally get.

The exercise also;

• Enabled them to see how the changes in their behavior would or could affect others (e.g. if farmers started to pay for, monitor & assess the service providers, they in turn would influence the quality of services being delivered by the service providers); and
• Illustrated to them that no one stakeholder was responsible for or had all the power to ensure the success of the Programme – everybody was dependent on everyone else and everyone affected everyone else.

Of course, we as facilitators, will have to relate all this back to the Programme Logframe. But I feel it’s a very small price to pay in return for the wealth of information & the exchange of views & knowledge that came out of this process. Also – the more detailed the theory of change, the easier it was for us to identify the information needed to monitor the Programme.

So, I’ll definitely think about using this process again under similar circumstances!