Please update your browser
We have detected that you are using an outdated browser that will prevent you from using
certain features. An update is required to improve your browsing experience.
We have detected that you are using an outdated browser that will prevent you from using
certain features. An update is required to improve your browsing experience.
One question I still have about implementing the Theory of Change is how to combine multiple end goals with a consistent plan
In my opinion there should be clear flow and logical relationship between the goals and activities.
The end goal should converge and not be multiple, if you're addressing a particular issue, the end goal should converge.
As mentioned by my fellow learners, the key is to make sure that there is one major end goal and to use that as a starting point to develop casual relations with the factors that should be put into action to help achieve it.
One way to look at it would be: there should be one end goal and not multiple goals. There could be multiple objectives but all these must be synthesized into a single goal. That way, it is easier to understand your Theory of change and identify strong causal links from the activities to the ultimate outcome.
This is a valid point.
You should have documented expectations and clear cut actions to take to achieve them. Your activities and actions should be such that meets your targeted goal and not a different goal entirely.
Theory of change is tricky but a very good implementation to any organization
Actually, during this module looks me this course like Monitoring or project management. Only the way we have learnt the logFrame.
By efficiently establishing causal relationships between activities, outputs and outcomes.
There should be one clear goal since you are trying to proffer solution to a specific problem. However, it is essential you brainstorm and be unbiased in your expectations. This will enable you to identify the appropriate activities that would link to intermediate outcomes as well as the ultimate outcom
It also enhance efficiency
Wouldn't it be just so much easier to have a different theory of change and implementation for each different final outcome you want ? So much easier to track and evaluate instead of having multiple end goals.
Thanks for the question according to me you can not come up with multiple end goals
A theory of change is a set of assumptions that explain both the mini-steps that lead to the long-term goal and the connections between program activities and outcomes that occur at each step of the way.
A theory of change is a set of assumptions that explain both the mini-steps that lead to the long-term goal and the connections between program activities and outcomes that occur at each step of the way.
A theory of change is a set of assumptions that explain both the mini-steps that lead to the long-term goal and the connections between program activities and outcomes that occur at each step of the way.
In my side, there is a need to take much effort on theory of change.
Yes it is.
More readings and examples are needed for clear understanding the theory of change.
I think the implementation plan also refers to the logframe , who else reasons with me ??
In my opinion, i think you can combine both end goals in the theory of change, but they can all have similar or cross-linking activities, output, and outcomes...
absolutely
that is not always the case. a project may have two or more end goals, being pursued at the same time...
not in all instances
a theory of change is a logic model without so much detail, like outputs, some activities, etc...
its helps; communicate strategy, achieve better results, measure results, and also implement activities...
i agree with you, because some activities and inputs may actually be similar for the different end goals
to ensure that a project is on budget, schedule and within scope
The ultimate outcome decides the theory of change which establishes the causal links that are involved in fulfilling each activity which helps to build the implementation plan in order to achieve the desired goal.
Thanks for sharing that responde
Thanks for Sharing
I think the theory of change is really beneficial to acquire impact and helps establish a strategic route to follow.
This process is so important to achieving intended goals
Please how do you differentiate between logframes and theory of change
Please how do you differentiate between logframes and theory of change
This process is so important to achieving intended goals
This course doesn't place much emphasis on distinguishing between outputs and activities but I think that it is important as other courses do stress the importance of distinguishing them.
Starting a project from the end opens up all the unforeseen in the planning. As you start from the Ultimate outcome its gives you the opportunity to go deep into the process to achieve that.
Theory of change is indeed a guide for achieving organization ultimate outcome
There should always be a link between intermediate outcome and the ultimate outcome. Activities in the organization should lead to the path of achieving both
The ultimate outcome should be the utmost priority of establishing the organization
In my view, it is always nice to analyse the causal effect of each activity and goal, see if they will contribute positively to your ultimate outcome.
The model helps identify commonalities between end goals, to distill the goal into an ultimate outcome. This process helps guide the implementation, ensuring activities, outputs and intermediate outcomes are feeding into the realisation of this overarching outcome.
Your goals should all line up with your intended outcome. I found it easier to start with my intended ultimate outcomes and then my activities and fill in the gaps in the middle, sometimes going back and forth to make sure it was all allaigned.
I think there should be one cohesive, over arching goal with various activities and outcomes to meet the one major goal.
I agree with this too.
I am not clear on what is expected here. Are we to respond to the question in the first box or give thoughts on the module?
I believe that it is important to identify one ultimate outcome - it may be possible to find an ultimate outcome that combines the many perceived end outcomes which can become final intermediate outcomes.
I am not clear on what is expected here. Are we to respond to the question in the first box or give thoughts on the module?
I believe that it is important to identify one ultimate outcome - it may be possible to find an ultimate outcome that combines the many perceived end outcomes which can become final intermediate outcomes.
So I see that the directions for the Module 4 Discussion have been put in Module 5...
In my opinion the goal is too broad and very difficult to be achieved that sometimes or most of the times projects only contribute to and not completely achieve the goal. So it will be very difficult to have multiple goals.
I agree with this. If a nonprofit addresses two or three different issues (as mine does) it seems to be that they need their own models and this will inform the organisation on the right programmes to address each issue.
I agree with this. If a nonprofit addresses two or three different issues (as mine does) it seems to be that they need their own models and this will inform the organisation on the right programmes to address each issue.
Logical flow should be ensured in activities and goals, all the activities should contribute towards outcomes and should ensured end goals.
Logical flow should be ensured in activities and goals, all the activities should contribute towards outcomes and should ensured end goals.
I think it should be one goal at a time.
Just as it's been said on the audio clips of room to read theory of change, theory of change is always evolving. The more you get feedback and evaluate, the more you see new things to add and remove
But then, I guess it should be a goal at a time and just as it's being said, you might even end up coming up with an alternative or additional goals (aspirations goals) as a result of your efforts or enthusiasm
I think it should be one goal at a time.
Just as it's been said on the audio clips of room to read theory of change, theory of change is always evolving. The more you get feedback and evaluate, the more you see new things to add and remove
But then, I guess it should be a goal at a time and just as it's being said, you might even end up coming up with an alternative or additional goals (aspirations goals) as a result of your efforts or enthusiasm
Usually the ultimate goal is one. Therefore, everything is supposed to contribute to one or few ultimate goals. The plan therefore should follow suit
I think your theory of change should be well thought out and planned. It is the specific steps, in detail, needed to make the change (end goal). the more thought out and planned your theory of change is, the more effective your end goal will be. It will meet the beneficiaries needs better and produce minimal unintended outcomes. Sometimes unintended outcomes can be negative.
What about when you make your theory of change and have to explore multiple activities to satisfy the outcome? I am addressing homelessness and I have to come up with multiple locations to house the unhoused.
in my view, i think the outcome should be one. the goals should funnel into the the outcome.
I agree that a single ultimate outcome to direct all outcomes, outputs and activities to might be best.
Agreed. I believe that the intermediate outcomes will build to a single ultimate outcome. To me, the ultimate outcome would/should also be aligned with the overall vision of the organisation. At the end of the day, what are we looking to achieve? And the intermediate outcomes are then the mission/purpose... we will achieve the ultimate outcome/vision, through these intermediate outcomes.
Agreed. I believe that the intermediate outcomes will build to a single ultimate outcome. To me, the ultimate outcome would/should also be aligned with the overall vision of the organisation. At the end of the day, what are we looking to achieve? And the intermediate outcomes are then the mission/purpose... we will achieve the ultimate outcome/vision, through these intermediate outcomes.
I prefer having a goal fixed while the other plans can be altered aimed to achieve the goal
From my experience, I would give my suggestions as follows.
The ultimate outcome should
No matter how many goals you have, i would like to think that somehow your intended outcomes will find a meeting point.
Theory of change is absolutely logical and dynamic
Theory of change is a must to create every social change.
Log frames can b a fruitful tool as it monitors the activities that too time bounded resulting in achievement of goals sometimes multiple goals at the end.
Atleast it provides an opportunity to rescale and redesign the module by intruding different activities which might reach to the objectives . As in these covid days this is an appropriate time to adopt it and see the results by monitoring this closely.
Good theory of change contains solutions to the identified problem to be solved, a solution to the direct cause of the problem identified and solutions to the indirect causes of the problem to be solved by the project. This means that a comprehensive theory of change will allow the drafting of implementation plan to be done smartly. when coming up with an implementation plan one need to have evidence that the activities to be implemented will really allow the project to accomplish the intended impact.
I couldn't see the peers assessment to leave comment, it was totally blank so I was filled those without knowing what the peers written.
You're right