1. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THINKING SYSTEMICALLY
Inter-relationships
Perspectives
Boundaries

2. INTER-RELATIONSHIPS
What is the structure of the inter-relationships within a situation?
What are the processes between elements of that structure?
What are the patterns that emerge from those processes, with what consequences for whom?
Why does this matter? To whom? In what context?

3. Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
INTER-RELATIONSHIPS
Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
At the “concept” level
Few
In terms of particular systems methods
Some methods that help with dynamic modeling

4. PERSPECTIVES STAKES FRAMINGS STAKEHOLDERS Motivations Understandings
Things as well as people
FRAMINGS
Understandings
World views

5. PERSPECTIVES In terms of stakeholders and stakes :
What are the different ways in which a situation can be framed?
How could these different framings affect the way in which people judge the success of projects and program
How will people’s different framings affect their behavior, and thus the behavior of projects and the program, especially when things go wrong from their perspective? With what result and significance?

6. Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
PERSPECTIVES
Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
At the “concept” level
Stronger understanding of behaviour via use of stakes and framing
In terms of particular systems methods
Soft systems methodology - framing
Cultural-Historical Activity - motivation

7. BOUNDARIES
Which inter-relationships are privileged and which are marginalised? With what effect on whom?
What perspectives are privileged and which are marginalised? With what effect on whom?
How can the ethical, political and practical consequences of these boundary choices be managed, especially those decisions that cause harm or have the potential to cause harm?

8. Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
BOUNDARIES
Benefits to Outcome Mapping ?
At the “concept” level
Stronger concept of what “boundary partner” actually means beyond stakeholder position
In terms of particular systems methods
Critical Systems Heuristic
Various dialectical methods

9. OM & Systems Approaches
Inter-relationships :
Similar
Perspectives :
Both multiple-perspectives
OM primary focus on stakeholders rather than stakes and framings
Boundaries :
OM boundaries about “influence”
Systems boundaries about “position” and “value”

10. Reflections on use and utility of OM
Combination of process and outcome monitoring
well suited for programmes with entangled outcomes
planning, monitoring and evaluation are conceived as cyclical
Appropriate for interventions focusing on outcomes
can be applied at project or program level
requires that intervening agents see themselves as part of the change process
Best used at the beginning of an intervention
helps identifying who is affected, how, through which activities
permits designing a M&E system for documenting outcomes 10

11. Pro´s / Advantages of OM
Helps clarifying the roles of different stakeholders
identifying various spheres (control, influence, interest)
strengthening ownership and commitment
Useful for interventions where capacity building plays a major role
produces meaningful monitoring data (behaviour changes)
highlights the human dimension in tracking progress
Well suited for interventions involving complex change processes, where
progress relies on interaction of many different actors
causality and future change are hard to forecast
Integrates learning and reflection in the design of interventions
space and processes for learning and reflection are put in place
requires high M&E capacity from managers and field staff 11

12. Con´s / Challenges of OM
Demands for data collection (journals) can be high, challenging when
It cannot be integrated in existing activities or work routines
faced with different monitoring and accountability requirements
intervention`s capacities for monitoring are limited
Focus on boundary partners neglects relevance of other actors
more distant partners in a change progress, wider structure of actors
aspects of networking and interrelationships
Difficult and time consuming to accomodate, especially for newcomers
comprehensive package with a precise sequence
specific typologies and specialized terminology 12

13. Fusion of OM and Logical Framework
Integration of LF´s results-oriented focus with OM´s process-oriented learning pathways:
Focus: Orientation towards an overall goal and explicit consideration of changes in behaviour of project partners
Distribution of roles and responsibilities of development actors can be determined and displayed directly in the logic model
Should only be applied in situations where it can provide added-value:
need to harmonise between various levels
when information for various partners or for different needs and accountabilities is required
if an intervention should be improved in an LFA environment 13

14. Outcome Mapping and Logical Framework
Fusion Model (Ambrose, K. and D. Roduner)