My Communities

I worry that my organization might think they have got it all on theory of change because there is a tendency to think by attending one training we have known it all. To avoid this , i will keep revisiting the topic and seeking ways the team can realize that change is inevitable and there is need for continuous learning

This is true to remain optimist and see the reality of things

I worry my organization can have trouble identifying the effective time to finally deliver a project. The outcomes can be evaluated by monitoring the ongoing processes, then identifying the gap between what we expected to achieve and what we can really achieve by the end of the intervention.

I worry that my organisation may confuse the term accountability with the term hope towards the target group. Despite the professionalism and experience in the field, sometimes there is a risk of hope that things can change. In order to avoid this, I personally must always have my goals in mind and try to give the best of myself taking into account the priorities at work.

I worry that my organization might not confirm the plausibility of its theory and also create a theory that isn’t measurable, because in many cases concerning the growth of people through education and ethics, it is necessary to consider the human accountability as a fundamental factor: Will they react as I suppose they will, will they accept the path I have prepared for them? All these variants make it difficult to support our assumptions with evidence, unless a prior and similar situation has already proven to be effective.

I worry that my organization might be able to measure theory because changes in people’s lifestyle is not always easy to detect. To avoid this, I will create a logical model to help articulate the input, output, and outcome indicators.

Thinking that you have made it all. need for robust scrutinization on every stage

from my point of view, the most difficult pitfall to avoid is "failing to take the external context into account.". Context analysis is fundamental to better understand the place of our action and to better design our action. But most of the time in the "external context" other organitations are working, and it is very difficult to understand what they are doing and coordinate with them. (cluster system should be better implemented from my point of view!).

Example: I worry that my organization might not confirm the plausibility of our theory because it may be untested or untried in this context. To avoid this, I will review literature to look at evidence-based theories and practices that could be adapted and applied.

I worry that my organization might create a theory that is not measurable because the impact relates to human behaviour and psyche. To avoid this, I will articulate the input, output and outcomes indicators in deep detail while trying to quantifying most of them to the extent possible.

I worry that my organization might Confuse accountability with hope because we are over ambitious. To avoid this, I will set SMART objectives, Targets and Indicators while developing a theory of change.

Consider your organization. Which of the six pitfalls described in this article will be most difficult to avoid? Why? How will you avoid this pitfall?

Example: I worry that my organization might __fail because _funds are not released on time. To avoid this, I will ______PREPARE RELEASE OF FUNDTS A BIT EARLIER ______.

A theory of change can be a helpful tool
for developing solutions to complex
social problems.

I think the biggest challenge is to take into account the external contextual factors. Especially in transnational projects, taking into account the contextual factors (e.g. laws, policies, socio-economic factors) can be very complex. It is therefore of particular importance to work together with experts/stakeholders and to have a good scientific evidence base.

it has been a good module but i have this question, how would u deal with these pitfall in most cases when you have a lot to implement.

Am worried my organisation will Confusing accountability with hope because we concentrate more on the big pictures. To avoid this is to clearly define the results that must be elivered to be successful not what we hope to happen.

I am concerned that my organisation does not take external contexts into account because mental health, which is the core of the organisation is such a subject that does not have a state framework guiding it. To avoid the pitfall, relevant stakeholders need to be engaged, including the state agencies, the target populations and other non-state actors in championing a holistic approach to instituting a mental health policy in Nigeria

This is true of many organizations as they throng along with the usual, believing they are on the right track

I worry that my organization might not be a success because not all patients will take the drugs as prescribed and others may withdraw.
this shall be alleviated by employing a team of well trained counselors, health specialists to carry out drug observed therapy.

I expect to have challenges with client not take medicine correctly as prescribed due to nature of there chronic condition that would likely cause depression and withdrawal, and also due to the likely immediate side effects of the drugs.
to this, the organization will employ highly trained counselors to encourage patients, together with a trained group of village health teams to help in drug observed therapy through reminding patients and actually witness patients taking medications

Good and relevant

I'm afraid my organization has a very faint concept of accountability but as a great deal of hope because we think it figured.

I think I need to be more accountable and disciplined enough to stick tour critical objectives.

I worry that my organization might create a theory that isn’t measurable, because it is dificult to measure the qualitative improvements in the ending of domestic violence. To avoid this, I will try to find among the qualitative aspects some mesurables indicators.

It is important for my Organisation to be absolutely sure of the difference it wants to make, so that it doesn't confuse this with what it hopes to achieve.

It is important for my Organisation to be absolutely sure of the difference it wants to make, so that it doesn't confuse this with what it hopes to achieve.

I worry that my organization might fail to create a measurable theory of change because _it has many priorities and an very complete organization with 7 services being offered. To avoid this, I will try to involve other teammates and bosses to map out the areas of priority for both the long term and short-term interventions.

The theory that is difficult to avoid is creating a theory that is not measuring,
Wht: Its because through the life of the project outcome and impact is a must to be able to measure change
How: I make sure track the logic model through tracking the input, output and the outcome indicators to be able to know what is working well.

i worry that my organization might not track the logic model through tracking the input, output , because they did not gather the right indicator frequency to know whether it working well and to avoid this, I need to measure the key elements

I worry that my organization might not achieve its desired outcome because they are not taking the context into consideration. To avoid this, I will condcut interviews and analysis with externals to my org/ .

Potential pitfalls:

1. not confirming the plausibility of our theory, by not allowing enough time to conduct essential research, lit reviews to validate that the interventions we are assuming will work, will actually work

2. failing to take the external context into account, again due to lack of proper preparation work and preparation time, prior to engaging in the development of a theory of change

3. Assuming we have figured it all out, by not creating a list of assumptions and "learning agenda" for regularly checking-in/validating these assumptions...

4. creating a mirror instead of a target

I worry that my organization may miss reaching a wider population of vulnerable GBV survivors because the program model does not lay out the strategies for sustained intervention. To avoid this pitfall I suggest that we populate participants per their needs and analyze the needs for accurate referral.

Confusing accountability with hope - there's a lot of blue-sky thinking, goals that are outside of our control and minor interventions aiming to make significant impact to the community. This requires looking at realistic outcomes that are in our influence of control, being realistic about what impact we can genuinely aim to achieve and how we can measure that impact. We need to clearly define the difference that we want to make for individuals and the community and make sure it's realistic.

The biggest pitfall to avoid for my organization is testing the plausibility of the theory of change as this involves a careful analysis of previous existing theories and concepts. I will seek to lead the team to build an evidence base to support the existing theories of change.

I worry that my organization might not want to confirm the plausibility of the Theory of Change because they think that the knowledge that we already have is enough to sustain the pathway of change and to explain assumptions.
To avoid this, I will research best practices and lessons learned in our field. In addition, I will do desk research on the basic concepts we use in the organization.

I suggest to include some secondary data studies, demographics, etc., related to your target population; analysis of the socio-political context, etc.

When will you achieve them (time period)
Because my objectives are so technicals, I will hav a long time to reading, educating and obtain results in a short time.

I worry that my organization might confuse accountability with hope because the organization is accountable to many stakeholders countrywide and instituting theory of change in the hope that it will effect the operations of other stakeholders would be a mistake. To avoid this I will advise my organization to stick to our mission which is being a primary national hub for HIV and AIDS support services for HIV organizations.

1. Not confirming the plausibility of your theory the reason is that most of the changes that are to be implemented is taken at management level without taking the beneficiaries or end users into account . 2. Assuming you’ve figured it all out that all that will be well as we roll out without taking certain peculiarity of the enviroment into consideration

I worry that my organization might face difficulties in recognizing and explicitly accounting for the uncertainties because of the organization's record in achieving success through routine pattern. To avoid this, I will ensure the revisiting of TOC periodically through setting "learning agendas" beforehand.

I worry that my organization might not reach the project outcomes in time because too much expected than resources we have. To avoid this, I will advocate donor to support more resources.

It is important to analysis the pitfalls to prevent any possible draw back to the theory of change thus may lead to a project disaster. Pitfall identification may help us improve and bring crisis management at early stage.

Worrying stems from a desire to be in control. We often want to control our environment. Or we may want control over the outcome of every situation. But the more you try to control everything around you, the more anxious you'll feel.

Creating a theory that isn't measurable because unavoidable important ad hoc circumstances might interfere.
To avoid this, I will make sure to have in place indicators that are achievable and measurable despite the unavoidable circumstances.

Assuming that I have figured it all out.

Sometimes organisations tend to lower their guard when it comes to monitoring whether they are still on track with their assumptions. More often thannot, they realise too late that they are off-track. This is because they assumed that they have figured it all out. To avoid this pitfall, I will make sure that our assumptions are reviewed regularly to see if they are still aligned to out long-term goal and whether the interventions are still adequate and relevant to the attainment of the goals.

I worry that my organization might face difficulties in recognizing and explicitly accounting for the uncertainties because of the organization's record in achieving success through routine pattern. To avoid this, I will ensure the revisiting of TOC periodically through setting "learning agendas" beforehand.

I think the hardest pitfall to avoid for the organization I am a part of would be confirming the plausibility of our theory. Because of the very nature of the problem we're trying to solve, it is difficult to accurately determine its magnitude (many cases go unreported) hence making it very difficult to measure in absolute terms. And because of the limitations in their roles and access to information CSOs face in the country where we operate, getting information and feedback from other stakeholders is a potential a challenge.

I think "Creating a theory that isn’t measurable" sometimes seems to be easy to organisations but it's true some thing are not measurable because they're not part of the project's objetives.

No one of the six pitfall are is difficult to avoid

My organization has been working on a Theory of Change, for the past few years, been 2021 the year when we review in a detailed way this process. I think, considering the pandemic that has affected the entire world since last year, it would be important to keep a “learning agenda” with the assumptions and the hypotheses, such as for example when the pandemic will be over and the effects that it may have on our interventions.

I worry that my organization might not take the external context into account because it doesn't see the direct interest from the external context, but Ignores that this includes decision making authorities who may have positive or negative influence on the organization's work. To avoid this, I will present the 6 Pitfalls to to avoid in our theory of change to be developped in order to make them aware.

I worry that my organization might fail to take the external context into account because we commonly focus on what we want to change in which sector without thinking about the external context like political and social economic context. To avoid this, we need to understand deeply that the external context will help us create a more realistic theory of change.

Confusing accountability with hope

The most likely pitfall for many organizations, I believe, will be not confirming the plausibility of their theory as this particular pitfall depends on doing research activities to which many organizations are not familiar with. Organizations are dominated by practitioners to whom research is a little bit alien, unless they are specifically academic and research oriented.

I worry that my organization might Do not confirm the plausibility of our theories because we lack the technical resources to measure the plausibility of our theories. To avoid this, I will raised funds and hired qualified personnel who will measure the plausibility of our theory.

Getting a mirror instead of a target. Initially I think we would like to have the mirror to help articulate what we are doing. The funding context is so brutal at the moment that it’s very difficult to think about what we could be doing, and it’s hard for the team to feel the necessary optimism or gather the energy required to throw forward to targets. I’m not sure this is such a pitfall at the moment, as starting with what we do could work as an initial step in the process.

People with social anxiety disorder often feel like they will say or do the wrong thing.

I worry that my organization might assume that we have figured out all because my agency figures out things without in-depth study. To avoid this, I will create a learning agenda and specify assumptions, regularly reflect on assumptions, and consider new assumptions to further improve impact.

Great idea

I worry that my organization might create a theory that isn’t measurable because everyone is so eager to make a difference that we will put things in place so that change is recognized but we may not consider if the change is actually making a difference. To avoid this, we will need to ask ourselves how we will measure the success of our long-term and intermediate outcomes.

I worry that my organization might mirror instead of target because it does not articulates what the organization wants to be held accountable for, and works backward to identify necessary activities, strategies, resources, capabilities, culture. To avoid this, I will create a theory of change that will lead us to propose any changes to these elements.

fund is an issue in SEs

I'm concerned that my org might create a mirror instead of a target because people will think about the work we are currently doing rather than the work we are ultimately accountable for. To avoid this, I will encourage stakeholders to be open minded and really think about how we can identify our major outcomes.

Of these pitfalls, our organisation is most likely to confuse accountability with hope. To avoid this, I will work on clarifying what results we will deliver in order to be successful and really drill down into which communities we are best placed to support and serve.

None, save the children has good theory of change

I think the most difficult Pitfall to avoid among the six pitfalls in my organization is "Failing to take the external context into account".
Because it is natural to have a competitive environment surrounding the company. The more the product is demandable, the more will be the competition across the market. Sometime external factors may affect company goal to change accordingly. The more a company is flexible to change, the more it will be sustainable. But the change must needs to be according to market demand. Because once the external change is coped up with, the external context will be automatically eradicated and competitors will fall behind.
As company faces various external context in terms of competitions, line extensions, product change and addition and above all continuous challenges from various sectors, it is difficult to cope up with the pitfall or to avoid it.

I'm worried that my organization will fail to take the external context into account because most activities in the rural settings are not regulated. Even when they are laws guiding them, enforcement of these laws is not determined. However, we will ensure that our activities are guided by extant laws

Are the relevant stakeholders referred to here members your team or government agencies. You need to be clear on this. To me I do not think that external pitfalls in your theory of change should be addressed by external bodies. You should rather find a way to navigate through this challenge and proceed with your intended objectives

my organisation maight create a mirror because projects are not designed backwards

I wish my organization will stop putting hopes into its planning and focus on accountability

I am afraid that my organization is diverging from its own theory of change, by making assumptions that in the end everything will align back and change will be seen

I am afraid that my organization has created a theory of change that is not measurable

I worry that my organization might not on track refers to the long-term outcome, because the assumption create divergence or the uncertainty found toward the project, to avoid this, I will make a time to recognize and explicitly account for the uncertainties with underline the plan, and learning more about my organizations carefully.

My organization have not yet defined a goal that´s measurable. We have to go in to more detail and find ways to measure the impact we want to achivieve.

I worry that my organization might assume it has figured it all out, because certain projects or tasks have been accomplished. To avoid this, I will create a learning agenda, to ensure the theory of change is regularly visited.

My biggest worry in my organization is creating a mirror not a target where the outcomes are not able to be met or not the specified outcomes were able to be meta.Also in creation of a theory of change which at the end its not measurable and can not bring about change.

I worry that my organization might do Assuming you’ve figured it all out mistake because our organization is working in this issue so the thinking that we know most of it can create pitfalls in theory of change.

of the pitfalls, of concern to my organization is putting the context into perspective. This is important because we are a governemnt agency and are therefore not immune to the ever changing political environment

Confusing accountability with hope
Failing to take the external context into account
I will create learning agenda

Might fail to take external content into account, because we are not familiar with all the external influences. To avoid this a deep understanding should be developed.

It would probably be creating a mirror instead of a target because we seem to know already that we are doing what needs to be done, and to avoid this we will need to examine ourselves critically and answer the question of what we want the outcomes to be.

I worry that my organization might not meet and take all external context into account, because it might be possible not to see all contexts to be happened, seeing the political state in my country. The political situation causes so much effects on the project that it is so difficult to track and define all external context. To avoid this, I will propose to keep in touch constantly with stakeholders, to get more information and deeper understanding of the situation

I worry that my organization might fall victim to creating a mirror instead of a target because the majority mindset is that there isn't a problem. Most of our organization is white male, age 50-75. Opportunities to engage in mindful dialog, to recognize pain points of fellow colleagues, etc. have been unsuccessful. To avoid this, I am working with our Director to execute unconscious bias, inclusive leadership, and Outward Mindset training and sensing sessions prior to the deployment of our baseline study and strategic planning workshops. My Director is working, daily, with our leadership to set the tone for change to an equitable and accessible workplace.

Your interest in further research will be helpful. I suggest establishing a baseline study that captures the current state of action items identified in the previous strategic plan (if one exists.) If a prior strategy with defined goals isn't available, I suggest research and surveys to detail where your intended goal-sets stand at this point. Doing this will help identify areas that are doing well with current practices as well as pain points that require attention.

I worry that my organization might not take into account the external context because we do not have sufficient understanding and data on factors outside of our control which could impact/delay change. To avoid this, i will propose a context analysis to be done to identify the key program stakeholders and factors which could impact/delay change.

Failing to take the external context into account is the most worrying pitfall because some organisations undermine their inputs into the process and decide to develop TOC internally only.

I worry that my organization might Confuse accountability with hope, because their current thinking is that TOC is a pictorial representation of what the organization is already doing and not what it will hold itself accountable for achieving. to avoid this, I will create a 15mins slide on these identified pitfalls and discuss with members of my team, before we commence the design of my organization's TOC

I worry that my organization might Confuse accountability with hope, because their current thinking is that TOC is a pictorial representation of what the organization is already doing and not what it will hold itself accountable for achieving. to avoid this, I will create a 15mins slide on these identified pitfalls and discuss with members of my team, before we commence the design of my organization's TOC

I worry that my organization might Confusing accountability with hope because there are so many goals that don't related in our mission statement . To avoid this, I will try to run ToC process in my organization.

In my organization, some of the key pitfalls that are very hard to avoid are:

• Lack of proper measure of the impact in the community served

• Lack of will to invest in the human capital development

• Lack of funds

• Lack of will to go with changing world

• Structure of the program

• Staff migration

I worry that my organization might "Not confirming the plausibility of your theory" because the plausibility of the strategy is not frequently verified. To avoid this, I will run a focused review of the market and customers interests.

confusing accountability with hope, this can be avoided by defining our results and goals

I worry that my organization might create a theory that's not measurable because we are still new to establishing indicators and determining the ability to measure the indicator. To avoid this, I will have the pillar leads develop logframes that force an understanding as to if the TOC has the appropriate level of specificity

pitfalls include confusing accountability with very broad , hopeful goals rather than focusing on what the organisation wants to do and be accountable for. To do this better, we have to remind ourselves it is not a vision statement that we're after here, it's a practical, workable process to hold the organisation to real goals, outcomes and interventions.

I worry that my orgainzation might pitfalls becouse of confusing accountability with hope to adovide this I will create accountabiltiy pillars.

I worry that my organization might fall because of activities and resources. To avoid this, I will Change my strategy to work.

My organization might fail to avoid creating a mirror instead of a target because the field planners tend to repeat the same routine interventions for the sake of finding easy results. To avoid this, I will arrange a participatory approach involving not only the field staff but also the members of the communities to find real needs and problems

Who are you seeking to influence or benefit ?

2. What benefits are you seeking to achieve ?
3. When will you achieve them ?
4. How will you and others make this happen (activities, strategies, resources, etc.)?
5. Where and under what circumstances will you do your work (context)?
6. Why do you believe your theory will bear out (assumptions)

I worry that my organization might confuse accountability with hope because we don't have an effective M&E department to hold the program department accountable. To avoid this, I will involve the program department in defining clear results for all our programs.

I believe my organisation might create a theory that is not measurable. The goal is to combat global land degradation. To avoid this , it is best to create intermediate outcomes that are predictive of the long term goal

I worry that my organization might Confuse accountability with hope, because their current thinking is that TOC is a pictorial representation of what the organization is already doing and not what it will hold itself accountable for achieving. to avoid this, I will create a 15mins slide on these identified pitfalls and discuss with members of my team, before we commence the design of my organization's TOC

I worry that my organisation might have the pitfall of meeting target. To avoid this, I will ensure that the organisation program plan is flexible to change.

I worry that my organisation might develop a theory of change that will create a mirror instead of a target. To avoid this my organisation should develop a theory of change that articulates the problem to be solved and also identify necessary activities, strategies, resources and the like.