My Communities

A potential pitfall is to not confirm the plausibility of our theory because we typically rely on internal dialogue. With this realisation now, we will definitely take steps to ensure we engage available data and resources to confirm our theories/assumptions.

@Sheila_TOC2 said in Module 1: Identify Pitfalls:

I worry that my organisation might create a TOC that is difficult to measure because we did not clearly identify specific indicators at different levels (input, output and outcome). To avoid this, I will need to invest adequate time thinking deeply and clearly articulating what my organisation would want to be held accountable for, and what it is we would want to achieve, who we want to target and by when, and clearly stating our assumptions. More practically, it may involve reviewing relevant literature to understand and doing consultations with stakeholders to gain insights that will help us to focus on our goal and identify/develop the concrete "signs" of achievement of results.

@Sheila_TOC2: I align with your proposed line to action to avoid this pitfall

@meps: I can relate to your post. Confusing hope with defined results to be achieved is a common pitfall that should be flagged

I worry that my organization might be creating a mirror instead of a target. Because it articulate what the organization want to be held accountable for. To avoid this, we would have to take a hard look to propose any changes to these elements.

I worry that my organization might underestimate the uncertainties in our plan because we lack of following-up with the clients after completing the evaluations. To avoid this, I will make a schedule for post-evaluation activities with specific indicators to measure the impact of the service to follow up with our clients.

I worry that my organization might aware because number of staff. To avoid this, I will ask and follow on this.

I worry that my organization might confuse hope with accountability because it is difficult to find a line between setting an ambitious outcome and one that is still measurable and realistic. To avoid this, I will make sure we don't become vague in the definitions and have a in- depth discussion about it.

I worry that my organization might assume we've figure it all out because of the in depth planning. To avoid this, I will create a list of assumptions and hypotheses that my organization can test at some frequency. .

We need trained people

I worry that my organization might not understand the interest of the theory of change, the board might prefer see short-term process in order to get funds. For this reason, I will raise awareness of board members about the growing interest of institutionnal donors in theory of change

I worry that my organization might confuse accountability with hope because we have the belief that hope is the pillar of our organization. To avoid this, I will discuss the disadvantages of doing that with my team.

I worry that my organization might is having difficulties in avoiding almost all of the pitfalls because the team is new and majority have no experience in creating a theory of change. To avoid this i will facilitate more training to creating theories that are clear and precise.

Considero que el reto mas desafiante es la medición de resultados, en tanto implica la formulación clara y precisa de los indicadores y la elaboración de los instrumentos adecuados que permitan un ejercicio consistente

I worry that in the ToC process, my organisation will continue reflect on what we have been doing because we feel they are big enough to reach our vision. To avoid this, I will keep asking for us to work backwards to identify necessary activities, strategies, resources - so we could articulate what our organisation wants to be held accountable for.

I worry that my organization might create a theory that is not measurable because of its history of what is considers important outcome data. To avoid this, I will work hard to help the team understand what it means for something to be measurable.

I have too often been involved in school-based projects that do not take into consideration the time limits of the academic day or year.

I worry that my organisation might not confirm the plausibility of our theory because we have not critically reviewed whether previous activities had generated required results and how what we propose to do would yield and reasonable outcome. To avoid this I will go back and do more reading and reviewing of previous activities and similar projects.

I fear may fail becausparticipants failing to turn up for HIV testing and or
Positive HIV patients failing to adhere to to take ARVs, we aim to tackle this through deployment of experienced counselors to encourage people to participate in the program and those found positive to adhere to drugs.

I worry that our project will struggle reaching the desired target because, people might fail to participate in HIV testing campaign citing fear of knowing their status and or positive patient failing to adhere to drug prescription.
This we target to improve it by deploying a team of experienced counselors to encourage participants.

I worry that my organization might fail because, participants might fail to turn up for testing because of fear to know their statuses, those who turn up and test positive might fail to adhere to the right prescription of ARVs.
we intend to deploy a team of professional counselors to help in encouraging people to participate and take drugs correctly once tested positive

I worry that my organization might not take into account the reality of South Africa's failing economy because we are all used to ignoring the flags and getting on with our lives. To avoid this, I will attempt to gather sufficient facts and communicate it in a way that also engages with peoples emotional connection.

I worry that my (hypothetical) organization might not do enough to confirm the plausibility of their theory because in the past they have made sweeping statements about what they are able to accomplish without having good data to back these statements up. To avoid this I will work on finding a way to measure outcomes of our participants against a control group.

Due to the broad mandate of the organization, it might end up creating a theory that is not measurable. To avoid this a logical framework will be workout for the proposed interventions. This enable to understand the logical link between activities, short term outputs, medium term outcomes, and long term goal and define the means to measure, the indicators and verification at each level.

I worry that my organization might produce poor quality work because of staff demoralization. To avoid this, i will include team building and staff rewards and eliminated micromanagers.

I worry that my organization might fail to take the external context into account because sport clubs don't realize they are part of many different communities and have many different "competitors". To avoid this, I will bring up the topic at the beginning of the development of the theory of change

The most probable one is creating a theory that is not measurable. I think it could be the changes might not reflect in productivity and income so, there would not be obvious indicators. To avoid it, i will look for other indicators, which are not numerical to assess progress

I worry that our organization might create a mirror instead of targets because of one's differences in the context. To avoid this, I will ensure that everybody will have a common understanding and shall prepare them for possible flaws that the organization may encounter in the delivery or implementation of a certain program. They must also be prepared for failures and shall learn to celebrate wins.

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.