FILLED IN BY Ricardo Ramirez

1. Title: Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change

2. Purpose: Documenting and analyzing the perspectives of users of public access (the demand side of ICTs). Outcome mapping captures changes in what people do differently (behaviours, actions), while Most Significant Change document how they perceive and appreciate change.

3.1 Description of Outcome Mapping (OM)

In the sequence Inputs > Activities > Outputs > Outcomes > Impacts, OM focuses on Outcomes. The rationale is that in many contexts, there is no linear, causal link between Activities and Impacts due to the existence of multiple other influencing factors. OM deals with contribution instead of attribution. It is part of the school of developmental evaluation that favours attention on process, systems behaviour, and learning. OM deals with “boundary partners”: those stakeholders that interact directly with a project (the users of a public access site). It invites them to develop a vision of where they want to go; and “progress markers” to capture what they will do differently -as a result of the interaction with the PA site- to reach their vision. Beyond that, their behaviour and action is beyond the control of the PA project and hence highly unpredictable.

Web resource:

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

26-slide overview:

http://evaluationinpractice.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/outcomemapping-gk3.pdf

3.2 Description of Most Significant Change (MSC):

MSC is an inductive, experience-based M&E approach that works well for those outcomes where there are no indicators:

At the core of MSC is the question: “In your opinion, what was the most significant change that took place in…. over the last.. months?” Followed by a re-iteration of the question “Which of these SC stories do you thin is the most significant of all?”

MSC follows 10 steps: 1. Defining domains of change. 2. Define reporting period. 3. Collecting SC stories. 4. Selection of collected SC stories. 5. Feedback of the choices made. 6. Verification. 7. Quantification. 8. Meta-monitoring and secondary analysis. 9. Tuning the MSC process.  (Examples of Domains: Changes in people’s lives; changes in relationships; changes in policy.)

Web resource:

http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm

21 slide overview:

http://evaluationinpractice.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/msc-kl-2007.pdf

4. Implementation:

Both OM and MSC call for their use in combination with other M&E approaches. OM and MSC are complementary in that OM captures what people do differently (short term outcomes) while MSC documents how they perceive impact.   If and when this research project develops Panels of PA users (see Panel item), then OM and/or MSC would be relevant approaches to utilize with them. Both approaches yield the best results when stakeholders are able from the beginning to develop their agenda (vision) and track change over time.

5. Issues for Seattle:

Explore interest in the methodologies. Review the basic elements of them. Discuss what is needed to test-drive them in terms of additional capacity development. (There is a Spanish language OM training in Panama in June.)