Document(s) 5 of 12

Introduction to Stage 1

Intentional design implies that a program frames its activities based on the changes it intends to help bring about and that its actions are purposely chosen so as to maximize the effectiveness of its contributions to development. During the intentional design stage, workshop participants define the development goals of the program. The logic of the program is articulated by following seven steps to outline the vision, mission, boundary partners, outcome challenges, graduated progress markers, strategy maps, and organizational practices.

The vision statement describes why the program is engaged in development and provides an inspirational focus. Workshop participants are encouraged to be truly visionary in Step 1, establishing a vivid beacon to motivate staff and highlight the ultimate purpose of their day-to-day work. The boundary partners (those with whom the program will work directly) are identified so that they can contribute to the vision. The outcome challenge statements and progress markers identify the results that the program would like to see its boundary partners achieve. The mission, strategy maps, and organizational practices describe how the program's contributions to the vision will be framed, by focusing on what it will do. By working its way through the seven steps, the program articulates how it will contribute to change within the complex system in which it operates.

Defining the elements of the intentional design stage is easiest if the members of the program already have a shared understanding of the ultimate purpose of their work. This consensus may be the result of a formal process or of informal discussions. Regardless, it makes the articulation of a vision and mission quite straightforward. If there is not consensus, and the group is using Outcome Mapping to negotiate various perspectives, options, and scenarios, then the intentional design stage may take longer to develop. Nonetheless, appropriate effort should be devoted to this "visioning" stage because, if properly articulated in the beginning, the vision's elements should remain relevant for the duration of the program (three to five years).

STEP 1 Describe the Vision

EXAMPLE OF A VISION STATEMENT

In the medium and large cities of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, the value of urban agriculture (UA) as an integral part of effective urban management and development is recognized by local authorities, communities, and international organizations. Municipal, regional, and national governments actively support UA activities by formulating and implementing UA-related policies. Using research findings, these governments have developed a comprehensive urban food supply and security strategy that allows cities to fully exploit their local strengths and create effective mechanisms for collaboration with rural and regional agriculture production sectors. More green spaces are built into cities, including designated areas for fruit trees, which provide shade and help to purify the air. To be more resource efficient, cities treat and reuse waste water for irrigating crops and watering livestock. Farms and households compost organic matter and recycle waste, contributing to better urban sanitation. Urban dwellers have greater food security, and more self-reliant local food systems are in place. Men and women who want to engage in UA have access to land and technical information so as to reduce their food insecurity and generate income. Producers, both rural and urban, have easy access to urban markets, as they are supported by a reliable physical infrastructure and are well organized. They are able to sell their products for a fair profit. Formerly marginalized producers are organized into advocacy groups that can effectively present their needs to policymakers. All groups have access to reliable and relevant technical information about UA. In essence, these cities are better fed, healthier, wealthier, more equitable, and cleaner.

The vision reflects the large-scale development-related changes that the program hopes to encourage. It describes economic, political, social, or environmental changes that the program hopes to help bring about, as well as broad behavioural changes in key boundary partners. The vision is related to the program's objectives but goes deeper, is broader in scope, and is longer-term. The ultimate achievement of the vision lies beyond the program's capability; however, its activities should contribute to and facilitate that end. It is the program's contribution toward the vision (through its boundary partners) that will be measured in an evaluation — not whether the vision was achieved. The vision represents the ideal that the program wants to support and should be sufficiently broad and

inspirational to remain relevant over time, despite changing circumstances. The facilitator should return to the vision statement over the course of the planning exercise to ensure that the program's activities are consistent with its intent.

Depending on the complexity of its programming, a program can use Outcome Mapping at different levels. For example, an organization or large program might want to articulate a vision and mission for its overall work and for each of its programming areas. A relatively contained program, on the other hand, would probably only need to develop one vision and mission statement.

The vision statement can be recorded on Design Worksheet 1 on page 51.

1. As a warm-up discussion, the facilitator asks a member of the group to respond to the following question: "In just a few sentences, what is this program supposed to accomplish?" The facilitator then involves the entire group in the discussion by asking, "Is this the way everyone sees the program? Does this fit with our organization's objectives and mandate?"

2. The facilitator then has each participant write down the two to three characteristics that would describe the near future (the next three to five years) if the program was wildly successful, asking the following questions: "What are your dreams of success? What changes do you want to try to help bring about? Imagine the context in three to five years when the program has been very successful: what would be different?" The facilitator posts the answers on the wall and the group reviews and discusses them.

3. While the group is on a break, the facilitator (alone or with volunteer participant(s)) writes up a vision statement that uses the participants' ideas and language, eliminates duplication, and captures differences.

4. Once the group has reconvened, the vision statement is revised. Politically charged, culturally inappropriate, or incorrect statements are removed and jargon or confusing terms are replaced, using a process such as the following:

   1. The facilitator slowly reads the draft vision statement, asking team members to note any words or phrases that seem to be culturally insensitive or politically charged; jargon or potentially confusing; unnecessarily long-winded; or grammatically incorrect. On the first reading, it is best not to let anyone interrupt, so that the whole picture is presented at once, both in spoken word and visually on the LCD or flip chart.

   2. The facilitator then reads the statement a second time, asking participants to interrupt if a word or phrase is read that is culturally inappropriate or politically charged. If a hand is raised, the problem area is discussed and an attempt is made to remedy it with alternative wording. Rather than the facilitator reading the vision statement each time, different participants should read it aloud as it is being revised.

   3. When the wording is resolved, the facilitator continues reading. This procedure is followed until no culturally insensitive, politically charged, or incorrect words or phrases remain, yet ensuring that the vision reflects participants' intentions.

5. As an alternative to Step 4b, the troublesome words or phrases are underlined and the reading continues. When the reading of the statement has been completed, the words or phrases that have been underlined are transferred to the top line of the "purging the jargon chart." If there are more than five such words or phrases, the ones that appear most significant to the team are selected. For each word or phrase selected, the facilitator asks participants to call out other ways of saying the same thing (without reference to the full statement). The choices (not limited to exact synonyms) are listed on the chart.

PURGING THE JARGON CHART
0	rural peasants	innovatively	sustainable development	profitable	vitality
1	rural poor	with	attention to imagination	money-making environment	prosperity
2	farmers	taking risks	protection of resources	worth doing	health
3	farm workers	creatively	long-term development	job-generating and income-level	energy producing
4	villagers	in new ways	holistic development	competitive	optimism

Source: Kibel, B.; Baretto, T.; Dieng, M.; Ndiaye, A.; Carden, F.; Earl, S. July 1999. Draft Outcome Engineering Manual.

1. The facilitator reads the part of the statement that contains the first word or phrase that was found lacking, each time substituting one of the alternatives from the chart. When all the options have been read, the facilitator asks the team members to vote by a show of hands for the variation they like best (including the original wording). If there is a clear majority, that option is substituted; if not, the facilitator leads a discussion of the options. On a re-vote, the option with the highest number of votes is selected. The process is repeated for the other words or phrases on the chart. The selected words or phrases are then substituted in the vision statement.

2. At the end of the process, the facilitator reads the entire vision statement aloud without interruption. It should evoke a spontaneous expression of approval from the group: people should feel that it reflects the broad development changes the program is trying to help bring about.

STEP 2
Identify the Mission

EXAMPLE OF A MISSION STATEMENT

In support of the vision, the program will work to enhance specific research expertise and training capacities in urban agriculture (UA) in research organizations that can influence local, national, and international policy-making in UA. It will contribute to the development of active networks of researchers and advocates and encourage partnerships between research organizations and interested governments. Working also with NGOs, government agencies, community groups, and other donors, it will support research to: document municipal practices and policies; test policy consultations; compare policy approaches in support of UA; and issue guidelines for incorporating UA into policies dealing with food supply and security, urban planning, gender inequality, poverty reduction, and waste management. It will encourage the identification of unresolved issues and will support research on these issues, for greater incorporation of UA into policy-making locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. It will contribute to the production, organization and dissemination of data and information that will sensitize local and international actors to the positive and negative aspects of UA activities.

The mission statement describes how the program intends to support the vision. It states the areas in which the program will work toward the vision, but does not list all the activities in which the program will engage. Rather, it is an ideal statement about how the program will contribute. It represents what the program wants to grow into as it supports the achievement of the vision.

When drafting its mission statement, the group should consider not only how the program will support the achievement of outcomes by its boundary partners, but also how it will keep itself effective, efficient, and relevant. The manner in which it operates, uses information, and handles change plays a key role in determining how well it can carry out its activities. This is discussed in greater detail in Step 7 (organizational practices).

The mission statement can be recorded on Design Worksheet 1 on page 51.

1. The facilitator asks a member of the group to respond to the question, "How can the program best contribute to or support the achievement of the vision?" In other words, what does the program need to be like in order to support the vision? The facilitator then involves the entire group in the discussion by asking, "Is this the way everyone sees the mission of your work?"

2. The facilitator then has each participant write down two or three characteristics that the program would have if it was working ideally.

3. While the group is on a break, the facilitator (alone or with volunteer participant(s)) writes up a mission statement that uses the participants' ideas and language, eliminates duplication, and captures differences.

4. Once the group has reconvened, the mission statement is reviewed and revised.

5. At the end of the process, the facilitator reads the entire mission statement. It should evoke a spontaneous expression of approval from the group.

FACILITATION TIPS

• Details regarding the program's mission are sometimes given when the group is describing its vision. If this occurs, the facilitator lists the information about the program's contributions under a separate heading called "Mission." Once the vision has been created, the facilitator reviews the elements of the mission with the group and refines it as required.

• While it is preferable to carry out the first two steps in a group setting, the facilitator can save time during the design workshop by asking participants to answer questions by e-mail in advance in order to draft the vision and mission statements. The drafts can then be revised when the entire group has assembled in the workshop. An example of such an e-mail "survey" is included on the next page. If written material from the program's staff seems to be contradictory, the facilitator should not attempt a synthesis, but rather start fresh in the workshop, where the whole group is present to express and discuss different viewpoints. Even when there is a strong convergence of views in the e-mail survey, the group exercise should still be given the time needed for participants to develop a common language. This is time well spent and will serve the group well for the rest of the workshop.

EXAMPLE E-MAIL SURVEY TO DRAFT A VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT

Hello!

Please answer each of the questions below so that I can draft a vision and mission statement for us to go over as a group. You can use point form if that is easier. Nobody will be identified by name, so please feel free to be idealistic and visionary.

Here are the questions:

1. Picture the program three to five years from now and imagine that it has been extremely successful in developing and implementing its activities. In this ideal situation, assuming everything went well, what changes did your program help to bring about? What have your partners achieved? What are they doing differently? In other words, what would total success look like?

2. How can the program best contribute to this vision? What areas does it need to work in to promote and support the realization of the vision? What does it need to do in these areas? What does it need to accomplish in these areas?

3. What individuals, organizations, or groups will the program need to work with to effect these changes? Who will you work with most directly? Who can help or hinder your work? Who are the ultimate beneficiaries?

4. Please state why these individuals, organizations, or groups are needed as partners.

If you could return your answers to me by Thursday, February 8, then I can draft the statements before our meeting early in the week of February 12. If you have any concerns or comments about the questions, please get in touch with me.

Looking forward to working together.

STEP 3
Identify the Boundary Partners

EXAMPLES OF BOUNDARY PARTNERS

1. Local communities (NGOs, indigenous groups, churches, community leaders, model forest administration unit)

2. Government officials and policymakers (national forestry agency/department, regional administration)

3. Private sector (tourism, fisheries, non-timber forest products, logging and wood processing companies)

4. Academic and research institutions

5. International institutions

Boundary partners are those individuals, groups, or organizations with whom the program interacts directly and with whom the program can anticipate opportunities for influence. These actors are called boundary partners because, even though the program will work with them to effect change, it does not control them. The power to influence development rests with them. The program is on the boundary of their world. The program tries to facilitate the process by providing access to new resources, ideas, or opportunities for a certain period of time. A single boundary partner may include multiple individuals, groups, or organizations if a similar change is being sought in all (for example, research centres or women's NGOs). Figure 4 illustrates the relationship of the program to its boundary partners, and the relationship of those actors to the broader environment in which development occurs.

When listing the program's boundary partners, the focus should be on the actors with whom it works directly. If the program cannot directly influence an actor, the group needs to determine who it can influence who will, in turn, influence that actor. The actor who can be influenced is then included as a boundary partner instead. In this way, the program maintains a focus on its sphere of influence, but with a broader vision. For example, a rural development NGO may not be able to influence the Minister of Finance directly, but it can influence farmer organizations, which can then lobby the Ministry to effect change. Therefore, the farmer organizations would be included in the NGO's list of boundary partners, but the Minister of Finance would not.

Figure 4. Boundary Partners

Program's Boundary Partners

Generally, a program does not have more than four or five types of boundary partners (although each boundary partner can include multiple individuals, groups, or organizations). When deciding how to group the individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program works, the crucial feature is that the program truly wants to encourage changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities, or actions of that partner. For example, a rural development NGO may be working with five different farmer organizations in five provinces, but, if the changes that it is trying to help bring about in those organizations are the same, then they are grouped together as a single type of boundary partner.

If there are other actors that the program needs to work with but does not necessarily want to change, they can be listed separately under "strategic partners" so that they can later be considered when developing strategies. Other donors would most likely fit into this category. The program may want, or need, an alliance with them to achieve its objectives, but it is not trying to change their behaviour. Strategic partners are considered in terms of their contribution to the mission.

Figure 5 presents a typology of the actors whom IDRC-supported programs influence to act in ways consistent with sustainable and equitable development. In other words, these are the actors among whom

IDRC tries to encourage outcomes that contribute to its vision. Rather than being linear, the activities and relationships are dialogical, therefore the arrows go in both directions. There are both actions and reactions, because in each situation there may be cooperation, resistance, or negotiation, resulting in mutual influence and learning. The program may try to influence the applied research community through intermediary institutions or it may work directly with the research community. This typology is provided only as an example. Other organizations would have a different configuration of boundary partners.

Intermediary institution: The institution that represents IDRC in the field (for example, an NGO that is implementing a small-grants program).

Applied research community: The research organizations or individual researchers who are implementing the programming activities in the field. For IDRC, this often implies a government, NGO, or university department that is primarily responsible for the research activities.

Development agents or system gatekeepers: The individuals, groups, or organizations who have the power to promote, block, or otherwise influence how the ultimate beneficiaries are reached and affected. For development research, this group often includes the intended users of the research findings.

Beneficiaries: The individuals or groups for whom, or with whom, the program is ultimately working to help improve their economic, social, political, or environmental well-being.

The program's boundary partners can be listed on Design Worksheet 1 on page 51.

1. The facilitator asks each person to list on a piece of paper those with whom they think the program needs to work directly to encourage the achievement of the vision. The following questions can be used to guide the process: "Who will be the most important actors with whom you work? On whose actions does the success of the program most depend?" The facilitator or someone from the group reads the vision aloud.

2. Participants read their lists out loud and the facilitator writes the names on a flip chart, eliminating any duplication.

   If the group is having trouble identifying people, organizations, or groups, the facilitator can present the IDRC typology (if it is appropriate) to try to stimulate ideas. The facilitator asks: "Among which actors does the program want to encourage change so that they can contribute to the vision?" Other questions that can guide the process are: "Who are the ultimate beneficiaries? Who can the program influence most directly? Who can help or hinder its work?"

   If the group has only identified one boundary partner, the facilitator asks whether change in that boundary partner needs to be supported by others. It may be that the program is only working directly with one type of person, group, or organization, but the facilitator should verify that they are approaching the change process holistically and have not left anyone out.

3. Sometimes the group will identify long lists of boundary partners. In order to start narrowing down the flip chart list and identifying priorities, the facilitator asks, "Where will you put most of your efforts and resources? Who will you work with directly?" These people, organizations, or groups are highlighted either with a star or by starting another list. If the program will not be working with some actors directly, they should be set aside because they are not boundary partners.

   If the group still has a lot of boundary partners, the facilitator goes over the concept of "boundary partner" with them and asks them to consider whether everyone on the list is a boundary partner or if some actors have a different relationship with the program. The facilitator asks, "Do any of them belong together because you are hoping to see a similar change in them or because they play a similar role?" If so, these are grouped together. The facilitator asks whether the program can realistically expect to influence that quantity of boundary partners or if they need to focus.

   If the group wants to better articulate the logic of the influence it wants to have through its boundary partners, it can sketch out its boundary partners' boundary partners. These are the people, organizations, or groups with whom the program's boundary partners are working and whom they are trying to influence to contribute to social change and poverty alleviation. The facilitator asks, "Who are your boundary partners going to influence to contribute to the achievement of the vision?" These individuals, organizations and groups are listed on a flip chart.

4. To concretize the list of people, organizations, and groups that are the program's boundary partners, the facilitator asks the group to do a small profile of each boundary partner. For each type of boundary partner (for example, researchers, policymakers, and others) the facilitator asks: "Who have you been working with that you will continue to work with? Who do you need to start working with?" These peoples' names are listed below the boundary partner. Other information, such as their geographic location and willingness to be involved in the program, can also be discussed and listed at this point if necessary.

FACILITATION TIPS

• The concept of boundary partners is quite specific in Outcome Mapping and it may take the group some time to catch on to the notion of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in relation to the people, organizations, and groups with whom they work directly. This is crucial to the development of the monitoring system, so the facilitator may need to explain the concept quite a few times.

• It can be helpful to point out that the notion of boundary partners is nested. The program's boundary partners have boundary partners of their own. Even if those are the actors whom the program ultimately hopes to reach, it is trying to do that through the people, organizations, and groups with whom it works directly, therefore this is where they should plan for and assess results.

This page intentionally left blank.

STEP 4
Identify the Outcome Challenge

EXAMPLE OUTCOME CHALLENGE

Outcome Challenge 1: The program intends to see local communities that recognize the importance of, and engage in, the planning of resource management activities in partnership with other resource users in their region. These communities have gained the trust of the other members of the partnership and the recognition of government officials so that they can contribute constructively to debates and decision-making processes. They are able to clearly plan and articulate a vision of forest management activities and goals that is relevant to their context and needs. They call upon external technical support and expertise as appropriate. They act as champions for model forest concepts in their communities and motivate others in the partnership to continue their collaborative work.

Once the boundary partners have been identified, an outcome challenge statement is developed for each of them. Outcomes are the effects of the program "being there," with a focus on how actors behave as a result of being reached. An outcome challenge describes how the behaviour, relationships, activities, or actions of an individual, group, or institution will change if the program is extremely successful. Outcome challenges are phrased in a way that emphasises behavioural change. They should be idealistic but realistic. This is done for two reasons: it stresses that development is done by, and for, people; and it illustrates that, although the program can influence the achievement of outcomes, it cannot control them. The program contributes to the change, but ultimate responsibility and power for change rests with the boundary partners themselves.

Outcome challenges are phrased so that they capture how the actor would be behaving and relating to others if the program had achieved its full potential as a facilitator of change. The group is encouraged to think about how it can intentionally contribute to the most profound transformation possible. The "challenge" is for the program to help bring about these changes. Because changes in people, groups, and organizations cannot be understood in isolation from one another, the outcome challenge incorporates multiple changes within a single statement rather than breaking them up into separate statements. A set of progress markers will be identified in Step 5 that outlines the progressive levels of change leading to the achievement of the outcome challenge.

In order to keep the discussion as relevant as possible to the vision and mission, outcome challenges tend not to be quantified (for example, in terms of the percentage increase in boundary partners who have changed) or tied to a specific completion date. This also helps, at both the monitoring and evaluation stages, to avoid simply focusing on indicators that are easier to achieve and measure at the expense of more profound qualitative changes. Outcome challenges should not include information about the strategies or activities that the program intends to employ, but rather should describe the qualities of change in the boundary partners' behaviours. Outcome challenges are usually phrased as "The [program] intends to see [boundary partner] who [description of behaviours in the active present tense]."

The outcome challenges can be listed on Design Worksheet 1 on page 58.

This process works best with relatively small groups (up to 20 people), because it requires that all members of the group go up to the front and write on a flip chart. If there are too many participants, a bottleneck is created at the flip chart and the process can take too much time.

The following process is repeated for each boundary partner.

1. The facilitator asks the group to answer the following question individually: "Ideally, in order to contribute to the vision, how will the boundary partner be behaving or acting differently? What new relationships will have been formed? How will existing ones change?" Each participant writes their answers down on a sheet of paper. It is useful to ask people to reflect on a question themselves for a few minutes before having a group discussion, as it gives them an opportunity to concentrate and come up with more thoughtful answers before they have to share them with others.

2. Flip charts and markers are placed at the front of the room and the participants go up and write down how they would like to see the boundary partner behaving. They do not need to go up one after the other, but should be encouraged to go up together, read what their colleagues are writing down, and talk about the various points. They should not duplicate what their colleagues have written, but should add any new elements that expand on the idea. This encourages them to build on each other's ideas.

3. In plenary, the facilitator then reads over the information on the flip charts and the group discusses whether, cumulatively, the points capture the desired changes in the behaviour, relationships, actions, or activities of the boundary partner. To focus the conversation, the facilitator asks a series of questions: "Is anything missing or factually incorrect? What is your first "gut" reaction to the information? Does anything surprise you about the changes included? Is the set of changes overly ambitious or not sufficiently ambitious? Will the boundary partner be better able to contribute to the development process and the vision if they are behaving and relating with others in these ways?" If the boundary partners are present, the facilitator asks them whether what is being defined makes sense in the "real world."

4. While the group is on a break, the facilitator (alone or with volunteers) organizes the various elements into a single outcome challenge statement that describes the state or qualities of the change in the boundary partner. It can be useful to ask one or two of the participants to help draft the statement.

5. Once the group has reconvened, the facilitator reads the outcome challenge statement and asks the group, "If all these changes occurred, would this boundary partner be well placed to contribute to the vision?" The group should respond favourably that the level of change described in the outcome would make a significant difference and is worth working towards.

6. Once outcome challenges have been developed for all the boundary partners, it is useful to review the logic of the vision, mission, boundary partners, and outcome challenges to make sure that they make sense to the group. In order to do this quickly, the facilitator reads the set of outcome challenges and asks the group: "If all these changes occur, will the program have made the contributions to the vision that it wanted to make? Will it have fulfilled its mission?" There should be spontaneous agreement among the participants that these would be the program's ideal contributions. If someone important was omitted, they should be added to the list of boundary partners and an outcome challenge statement should be developed.

   It is also important to make sure that the program being designed fits with the implementing organization. The facilitator asks, "Have the necessary links and connections between the program and your orga nization's mandate been established?" If the goals of the program and the organization are not compatible, then the group should decide whether that is acceptable, and whether they need to redefine certain elements or get buy-in from someone in the organization.

FACILITATION TIPS

• Rather than composing each outcome challenge in plenary, the participants can be divided into smaller groups to write the outcome challenge statements, and then come together to review and revise them. If there are enough participants, two groups can write the same outcome challenge statement and they can then be compared in plenary. A lighthearted way to keep the smaller groups limited to their time frame is to set an alarm clock to ring after the time they were given to write the outcome challenge has elapsed (for example, 15 minutes).

• If the program has multiple boundary partners but the primary result to be achieved is to change their relationships with one another (for example, to provide a forum for tobacco control researchers, advocacy NGOs, and health departments to work together on policy development), then it is possible to develop one common outcome challenge and set of progress markers for the whole group. In this case, the outcome challenge would describe the ideal relationship between the partners (for example, considering how the partners are relating to one another and who is doing what in the partnership) and the progress markers would lay out the major milestones in the development of their combined partnerships.

DESIGN WORKSHEET 1: PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
Vision :
Mission :
Boundary Partner 1:	Outcome Challenge 1:
Boundary Partner 2:	Outcome Challenge 2:
Boundary Partner 3:	Outcome Challenge 3:
Boundary Partner 4:	Outcome Challenge 4:

This page intentionally left blank.

STEP 5
Develop Graduated Progress Markers

EXAMPLE PROGRESS MARKERS

Outcome Challenge: The program intends to see local communities that recognize the importance of, and engage in, the planning of resource management activities in partnership with other resource users in their region. These communities have gained the trust of the other members of the partnership and the recognition of government officials so that they can contribute constructively to debates and decision-making processes. They are able to clearly plan and articulate a vision of their forest management activities and goals that is relative to their context and needs. They call upon external technical support and expertise as appropriate. They act as champions for model forest concepts in their communities and motivate others in the partnership to continue their collaborative work.

Graduated progress markers are identified for each of the outcome challenges that the program is helping to bring about. They show the complexity of the change process associated with each boundary partner and represent the information that the program can gather in order to monitor achievements toward the desired outcome. For a detailed study of progress, the program can conduct an in-depth evaluation, combining the data from the progress markers with information on their context (gathered using other evaluation tools and methods).

A set of progress markers represents a change model for the boundary partner that illuminates the depth and complexity of change being sought. The progress markers should advance in degree from the minimum one would expect to see the boundary partner doing as an early response to the program's basic activities, to what it would like to see them doing, to what it would love to see them doing if the program were having a profound influence. For instance, progress markers that indicate reactive participation by the boundary partner are relatively easy to achieve and are listed first, under "expect to see"; whereas those that indicate more active learning or engagement are listed second, under "like to see"; and those that are truly transformative are listed third, under "love to see." In this way, the program will be able to trace what has been accomplished, while being reminded of what still needs to be achieved. The "love to see" progress markers should be set sufficiently high to represent profound change. These often come directly from the outcome challenge statement. The program will know it is not setting sufficiently challenging progress markers if the "love to see" markers are frequently met by its boundary partners early in the life of the program. Progress markers are generally framed as follows: "Who? Is doing what? How?"

Individually, progress markers can be considered as sample indicators of behavioural change, but their real strength rests in their utility as a set. Cumulatively, they illustrate the complexity and logic of the change process. This is something that no single indicator can accomplish.

Progress markers can also be used to describe how the boundary partner is interacting with its own boundary partners, thereby reflecting the indirect influence of the program. A program selects its boundary partners because of the influence it thinks they can have on development, and the progress markers permit this influence to be tracked.

Progress markers are intended as a way for the program to understand and react to the change process in which the boundary partner is engaged. It is only logical that no successful development program strives to change its partners in ways they do not want. The progress markers need to be mutually agreeable, and worthwhile to both the program and the boundary partner. If there are fundamental differences, these need to be resolved. Inherently, the program only facilitates change by helping to remove constraints and providing access to new information and opportunities for the boundary partners. The progress markers can be negotiated with the boundary partners before, during, or after the design workshop to ensure that they are relevant and appropriate.

Some progress markers may be attached to a date (that is, there may be an expectation that they will be reached by a certain point), but this is not obligatory and should not constrain the program's work. Although time lines are a reality in a development program, they are often externally imposed, may not be intrinsically relevant to the vision, and may even distract from the achievements most relevant to the vision. Reaching the "deadline," or the "target," therefore, should not be a primary focus of the program. The purpose of the program is to foster sustained change in boundary partners, and the purpose of the progress markers is to monitor the achievements that contribute to that outcome.

In Stage Two, Outcome and Performance Monitoring, a monitoring system can be devised for these progress markers, using an Outcome Journal to collect data. In order to manage the amount of data that needs to be collected, the program should limit the number of progress markers it sets for each outcome challenge to no more than

• Four "expect to see" progress markers;

• Eight "like to see" progress markers; and

• Three "love to see" progress markers.

Limiting the number of progress markers in this way also makes it possible to quantify results when monitoring the change process, if this is what the program would like to do. This is discussed in Step 9.

The progress markers for each outcome challenge can be listed on Design Worksheet 2 on page 59.

The following process is followed for each boundary partner to be monitored.

1. To begin setting monitoring and evaluation priorities, the facilitator asks the group whether there are certain boundary partners that are more important, that involve greater risk than others, or whose experience provides more potential for learning. These could be monitored more closely. "More important" can mean that the program plans to focus its resources and effort on that actor in the near future (for example, in the first 18 months of a 36-month program), or that the actor is central to the vision, or that changes in the other boundary partners identified are dependent on that actor changing first. Higher risk actors are those with whom the program has less previous experience or those whose current circumstances may present barriers to the desired behaviour. If the group can identify priority actors on which it would like to focus its monitoring and evaluation activities, then the progress markers and strategy maps can be limited to those actors. Nonetheless, the group should set a time to meet at a later date (for example, when they are planning for the second 18 months of a 36-month program) in order to go through the process for the other boundary partners.

2. The facilitator reads the outcome challenge statement and then asks each member of the group to write down answers to the question, "How can the program know that the boundary partner is moving towards the outcome?" The following questions can help to guide the process: "What milestones will be reached as the boundary partners move towards their intended role in contributing to the vision?" The group should try to think of changes in behaviour, activities, or relationships that would happen early on, as well as those that represent deeper change and take more time. Participants write down one idea per index card.

3. The facilitator posts the index cards on the wall, asking the group to select the cards that represent the minimum the program can expect to see achieved by the boundary partner. What would it like to see achieved? What would it love to see achieved? Any duplication in cards should be eliminated. Complimentary ideas should be joined together onto a single index card. The progress markers should represent observable change in the behaviour, actions, or relationships of the boundary partner. If the group identifies progress markers that would be difficult to observe, the facilitator asks, "How could you tell if this change happened?" In other words, "What would you see if you visited the boundary partners?"

   The group discusses the changes in behaviour that have been outlined and arranges them in the order of the change process from simplest to deepest. Ideally, there should be no more than 15 progress markers in the list; otherwise, there will be too much data to collect. If the group identifies too many progress markers, the facilitator asks the group to identify those that best indicate the boundary partner's engagement and show that change is occurring.

4. Once the group is satisfied with the list, the facilitator reads the outcome challenge statement and the set of progress markers and asks, "Does this represent a logical picture of the complexity of the change process through which the boundary partner would progress when moving towards the outcome? Are any important elements missing?" The group should agree that, although the set of progress markers may not describe every change, it does capture the major milestones.

FACILITATION TIPS

• If the facilitator does not think that a progress marker has been formulated as a change in behaviour, (s)he asks, "Does this really represent a change in the behaviour, actions, or relationships of the boundary partner?" If not, then it should be rewritten in a more appropriate fashion. Sometimes this has to be repeated a number of times before the group makes the distinction between a behavioral progress marker and a more traditional indicator.

• Some groups become confused about the "expect to see" progress markers because they think of them as the baseline situation — the point at which the program starts working with the boundary partners. Instead, the "expect to see" progress markers represent initial changes in the behaviour, actions, activities, or relationships of the boundary partners — changes that indicate a recognition of, or commitment to, the program's goal. These are the behaviours that require reactive participation by the boundary partners and that should occur if the project itself is operating well.

• In order to be challenging and to encourage the deepest transformation possible, the "love to see" progress markers may extend beyond what one program can achieve within its time frame. If the group expresses concern that they will be viewed as a failure because their boundary partners will not achieve all the "love to see" progress markers, the facilitator reassures them that their success will be assessed based on their ability to encourage the greatest transformation possible in the context in which they and their boundary partners are operating, and this transformation will be clearly situated in the context of the visionary change to which the program is committed. Of course, this also has to be understood and accepted by the program's managers or donors.

• Outputs (directly observable products of the program) are not tracked independently in Outcome Mapping. If the group wants to record outputs using progress markers, then it can include the behaviours of the producers and users of the outputs that it wants to track. For example, an "expect to see" progress marker for research institutions could be "publishing articles on urban agriculture in internationally recognized scientific journals." Through its monitoring, the program could then track the publications as an output by a particular boundary partner. If this was not adequate, other monitoring methods to track outputs would have to be included.

This page intentionally left blank.

STEP 6
Complete a Strategy Map
for Each Outcome Challenge

EXAMPLE STRATEGY MAP

The purpose of the strategy map is to identify the strategies used by the program to contribute to the achievement of an outcome. A strategy map is created for each outcome challenge. Matrix 1, on page 63, provides a method for dividing strategies into six types. Each of the six cells represents a different type of relationship between the program and the boundary partner it is attempting to influence. For most outcome challenges, a mixed set of strategies will be used because this has a greater potential for success, with one or two being dominant and the remainder being supportive.

Plotting the strategies using this 2 x 3 strategy map will

• Clarify the approach (mix of strategies) used by the program to tackle the particular outcome challenge;

• Indicate the relative influence that the program is likely to have on the individual, group, or organization being targeted;

• Help to pinpoint strategic gaps in the approach or identify whether the program is overextended; and

• Suggest the type of evaluation method appropriate to track and assess the program.

The three strategy types in the first row are labeled "I" because they are aimed directly at specific individuals, groups, or organizations. The three strategy types on the bottom row are labeled "E" because they are aimed at the environment in which the individuals, groups, or organizations operate. "E" strategies are meant to influence the boundary partners indirectly by altering the setting in which they operate.

Both the "I" and "E" strategy types are further divided into three categories: those that are causal (I-1 and E-1); those relying on persuasion (I- 2 and E-2); and those that are based on building supportive networks (I- 3 and E-3). Primary control and responsibility for the consequences only rests with the program when I-1 and E-1 strategies are employed. With I- 2, I-3, E-2, and E-3 strategies, the program tries to facilitate change, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the individual, group, or institution (i.e., with the boundary partners). The further the program moves away from causal activities, the less control it has. This has important implications for assessing contributions toward the achievement of outcomes.

The purpose of the strategy map exercise is not simply to ensure that all the boxes have something in them. Indeed, some boxes may appropriately be left empty, depending on the nature of the program's work. The appropriateness of strategies largely depends on the type of changes that the program wants to encourage in its boundary partner.

Once the group has completed a strategy map, they can look it over and analyze the total approach. This can help determine whether they are working too much or not enough in certain areas, what relative influence they can expect (given the strategies being employed), and whether they are spreading themselves too thin to have a substantial effect.

In Stage Two, Outcome and Performance Monitoring, a monitoring system can be devised for these strategies, using a strategy journal to collect data.

Process	Approximate Time per boundary partner	1 hour

This process is followed for each outcome challenge and set of associated progress markers.

1. The facilitator asks each member of the group to write down 7–10 strategies based on the focus question, “How will the program contribute to the achievement of the outcome challenge in the next [appropriate number] months?” These can be new strategies or, if applicable, ones that are already being used.
2. The facilitator then divides the group into pairs so that they can discuss their answers and come up with the five best strategies in which they think the program should engage.
3. Each pair then presents their ideas. The group discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each activity and decides whether it would like to include it in its strategy map. While the group is discussing the various options, the facilitator records the strategies in the correct cell of a strategy map, on a transparency, on a flip chart, or on a computer without showing it to the group. Waiting to show the strategy map until the group has completed the discussion can make it easier to explain the six-cell matrix, because it will be filled with specific examples of the group’s work.
4. The facilitator encourages the group to be creative but practical when thinking about strategies. Strategies should not be thought of in isolation. Instead, the group should be encouraged to think about how they complement one another. If the group gets stuck when trying to come up with strategies, the facilitator asks questions such as: “How can you contribute the most with the money you have available in the program? What are the obstacles to the achievement of the outcome? Where and how can you help the boundary partner get around the blockages? What actions can be taken to increase the likelihood of this outcome being achieved? Do you know anybody else who is trying to
   contribute to this kind of outcome with this type of boundary partner? Should you act in the same way? Why? Why not? Who else will influence the boundary partner to achieve the outcome and how can you complement their work?”

   Before showing the group the strategy map, the facilitator verifies that they have thought through all six strategy types by asking them the following questions about each:

   • What will be done to produce an immediate output? [I-1]
   • What will be done to build capacity? [I-2]
   • How will sustained support, guidance, or mentoring be provided to the boundary partner? By whom? [I-3]
   • What will be done to change the physical or policy environment? [E-1]
   • How will you use the media or publications to promote your work? [E-2]
   • What networks/relationships will be established or used? [E-3]
5. The facilitator presents the completed strategy map to the group and reviews it to make sure that it is complete and realistic, based on the human and financial resources available. The facilitator encourages the group to prioritize by asking, “Are there certain strategies that need to be put in place first? What has to be initiated in the next three or six months? What do you know you have to do, or are already doing and should continue? What is the most promising strategy?” These strategies are highlighted with a star. From amongst those strategies seen as most important, the facilitator asks, “Do you have the necessary resources, capacities, and technical skills to put these strategies into practice?” If not, the group has to decide whether they can compensate for the deficiencies or if they need to devise another strategy.
6. If the group wants to assign specific tasks, a workplan designating staff members’ responsibility areas, with a time line for completing tasks, can be developed at this point.

This page intentionally left blank.

STEP 7
Articulate Organizational Practices

Now that the nature of the work is more clearly defined, the program needs to spend some time looking at how it is going to operate to fulfill its mission. The purpose of this step is to identify the organizational practices that the program will use to be effective. Taken together, these organizational

practices describe a well-performing organization that has the potential to sustain change interventions over time.² Some of the practices relate directly to the activities being undertaken, whereas others relate to the “care and feeding” of the program so that it can thrive. Collecting and reviewing data on organizational practices contributes in two ways. First, it provides an opportunity to reflect on what is going on internally in the organization, and how that situation could be improved upon so that the program can operate more effectively. In essence, this is about maintaining the relevance of the program, as well as its capacity to stay on top of developments in its field. Second, unintended results often occur in relation to organizational practices, and the opportunity should be taken to document these. For example, through keeping in touch with clients previously served, one may find out about contributions that the program has made outside its intended scope of influence. Unintended results may also occur when making contact with key informants, obtaining the support of the next highest power, and sharing wisdom with others. Unintended outcomes may be important to the survival of a program and may also contribute to new program directions.

In this step, the program reviews the outcome challenges and identifies the organizational practices that will best help it to contribute to the intended change in its boundary partners. In Stage Two, Outcome and Performance Monitoring, a monitoring process can be devised for these practices, using a performance journal to collect data.

__________
² A well-performing organization is defined as one that is efficient, effective, relevant, and sustainable (Lusthaus et al. 1999).

The eight practices are not discrete, nor are they operationalized in a linear fashion. Cumulatively, the practices offer a program a method for considering more broadly the ways in which it works. Each organizational practice represents activities that enable a program to remain relevant, innovative, sustainable, and connected to its environment. The practices are defined below.

Practice 1. Prospecting for new ideas, opportunities, and resources

Members of the program should scan information sources, both locally and globally, for new opportunities that could help them to fulfill their mission. They should be looking for relationships to ongoing activities, as well as entirely new opportunities. These could include new regions in which to work (or that could be linked to existing efforts in other regions) or new groups that could be engaged in the change activity.

Practice 2. Seeking feedback from key informants

In the program’s work with its key boundary partners and other organizations that support the delivery of its program (such as other funders), it will likely maintain frequent and regular communication. However, the program should also keep in mind other actors in the field who are not regularly involved, but who have expertise and a robust knowledge of the field of activity. These informants should be people who are willing to be honest and open, and to share both the good and bad impressions made by the program’s work with its boundary partners. They can provide feedback that recipients may be unable or unwilling to offer.

Practice 3. Obtaining the support of your next highest power

The program should think about how it is going to present its ideas to higher-level decision bodies in its organization (such as senior management or a board of governors). Good ideas must be presented in an appealing manner that can be understood by decision makers in the context of broader organizational objectives. This involves not only creating opportunities to obtain their support, but also engaging them in activities that strengthen their ownership and commitment to the program. This should be an ongoing process in order to maintain support and interest over time.

Practice 4. Assessing and (re)designing products, services, systems, and procedures

Ongoing review of systems and services is critical to ensuring continued relevance. Once a product or service has been put in place, the program needs to monitor it and to make modifications so that it continues to meet (emerging) needs and demands.

Practice 5. Checking up on those already served to add value

Program staff need to obtain feedback (both positive and negative) from boundary partners. They may find that an earlier project involving the same systems, methods, or products is no longer effective or has created other problems. The program needs to work with its boundary partners to address and fix such problems, and to build the learning from these activities into new work.

Practice 6. Sharing your best wisdom with the world

The program needs to put dissemination procedures in place in order to share its learning. The sharing should be both internal and with external colleagues and networks.

Practice 7. Experimenting to remain innovative

Space needs to be created for a program to explore new directions, tools, and partnerships. This may involve exploring literature not normally associated with the program’s work, discussing ideas with those not normally consulted, or taking on challenges beyond its established boundaries. This could include providing informal and individual time for experimentation, organizing group activities, and paying attention to personal and group physical, spiritual, and mental health.

Practice 8. Engaging in organizational reflection

Program members should be viewing each intervention as an opportunity to learn. Efforts should be made to create time for reflection on program performance and direction and on resource allocation.

1. The facilitator presents the concept of organizational practices to the group, highlighting the shift from the subject of boundary partners to the question of how the team will operate to sustain itself and fulfill its mission. The intent in dealing with the organizational practices is to focus on the operating style of the program, making explicit how the group will ensure ongoing creativity and monitoring of its activities, and how it will make itself into a reflective organization. The definitions of the organizational practices can be discussed using examples relevant to the program.
2. The facilitator reviews the outcome challenges with the group in order to identify commonalities. The discussion should focus on how the program will need to operate in order to contribute effectively to these outcome challenges.
3. Taking into consideration the strategies identified in Step 6, the group breaks into pairs to discuss the practices. The facilitator asks them to discuss the following question: “How do you have to be operating in order to support these changes in the boundary partners?” In other words, “What do you have to be doing in terms of the practices in order to remain effective?”
4. Each pair reports back to plenary about the actions associated with the practices in which they think the program needs to engage. The group discusses the benefits and challenges associated with the various practices and actions. Is the practice or action something they currently do? How do they do it? Why is it important? If it is something they do not normally do, why not? The facilitator writes the suggested actions in relation to each of the practices on a flip chart.
5. From the flip chart list, the group identifies the key actions in which they want to engage during the implementation of the program. These key actions can be monitored using the performance journal to be developed in Step 11.

Document(s) 5 of 12