Outcome Mapping (OM) and Management for Development Results (MfDR)

Comment

Comment by James O. Wagala on December 20, 2010 at 7:11am

 

Hello Joseph and Johns. Hello colleagues on AfCoP.

 

This is a very interesting discussion. I agree that the Logical Framework (LF) in itself does not suffice for planning, executing, monitoring and evaluating a project. Hence it needs to be supplemented with other tools, including Outcome Mapping (OM) to bring more clarity in the design of the project.

 

In conventional project management literature, project planning should cover the whole process of not only defining the project outputs but also identifying its beneficiaries and other stakeholders. All these are defined in the project charter and project management plan. 

 

A project charter formally authorizes a project or a phase and documents initial requirements that satisfy stakeholder aspirations. Its development involves clearly defining the project statement of work, analyzing the business case for the project, reviewing the enterprise environmental factors and the organizational process assets. These analyses will lead to a deeper understanding and identification of stakeholders which Mr. Odongo calls boundary partners in this case. It is imperative to remember during OM that boundary partners have enormous influence on the project but the project almost has zero influence on them, save for behavioral changes that will come with the delivery of the project's results.

 

Project management plan on the other hand documents the actions necessary to define, prepare, integrate, and coordinate all subsidiary actions of the project. Preparing it is an uphill task which requires thorough analyses of the vision, mission, strategies and organizational design so as to ensure the successful delivery of the project outputs and outcomes.

 

Why am i advancing this argument? I am doing so because all these terminologies, techniques and processes should be covered during planning and initiation of a project. The major undoing of many of us project managers is that we ignore the most important stages of this planning and jump into tools which look simple to handle. An example would be a project manager preparing his log frame before drawing a project identification file, analyzing the project environment, defining the project objectives, beneficiaries and boundary partners, and analyzing the project risk environment. Many project managers have confused a good looking log frame with a watertight project design, not realizing that LFA is only a technical working approach which does not accord capacity building and stakeholder engagement the necessary attention.

 

Regardless of the nomenclature, tools and techniques for project planning and execution should remain as such. But the process needs to be pretty clear so that any manager follows it to the letter. Meticulous planning is key to ensuring that all aspects of the project, including capacity building and stakeholder engagement, are adequately catered for during and after the project. I believe that all the tools are complementary and need to be used together for effective project planning and execution.

 

Whatever mix of techniques we have in our toolkit, it is important to follow the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

 

Keep smiling,

James Wagala

Comment by Joseph Opio-Odongo on December 3, 2010 at 5:44am

Johns Benedicto, your comments are appreciated. Those actors are referred to as boundary partners because even though the project works directly with them to effect change, it does not control them. The power to influence development rests with them. It is in this sense that the project is operating at the boundary of their world. Indeed, it situations where project implementation genuinely and 'successfully' engages these actors, their influences on progress towards expected outcomes tend to outweigh those of the project team.

Your observation that elements of the OM's intentional design (ID) exists in conventional LFA, is well taken. However, I find that the mix of deliberate effort to foster ownership of the change process by the actors, flexibility to adapt design and implementation arrangements to unfolding situations, but with discipline, and genuine stakeholder participation under the OM model makes the difference. Under the OM, ID application: a) enables mutual understanding of the project's underlying change theory and the explicit recognition that major and diverse actors and forces are involved in the change process and hence the need to map out project support and monitoring strategies in order to enable better understanding of the contributions of the project to the desired development outcome; b) makes human development the center piece of the change process; c) deliberately empowers key actors in the project as they engage in resolving their outcome challenges; d) enhancing the capacity and skills of actors in the project; e) permits collective perception of the ‘big picture’ that serves as the beacon for change and the basis for defining roles and contributions of the various actors in the change process, thereby bringing cohesion within and between project team and project partners. Precisely, the deliberate full engagement of actors under OM's ID, permits consciousness raising, consensus building, empowerment and ownership of the changes they desire. The project can at best help by increasing the actors' capabilities, encouraging them to change their behaviors, actions, and so on by themselves. It is in this sense that OM is a guide to the journey we take with our partners. The map is not a territory but the route we take in pursuing intentions, undergoing mutual learning of what works and what does not work and ultimately being able to account for project contributions during the journey and to recognize the contributions of others to whatever changes that may have occurred..

Comment by Johns Benedicto Kamangira on December 2, 2010 at 2:26am

This is a stimulating piece of discovery. I would like to reflect further on the 'Outcome Mapping', but while I do so, it is not clear why individuals, groups or organizations with whom the project will engage directly in influencing change, are refered to as "boundary partners". Who would be refered to as internal? Actually, the conventional LFA approach advocates for intentional design as you have defined. Further work must demonstrate how OM is derived from outcome level objective hierarchy. I wish to subscribe that the OM model could help us understand change processs occuring at a diversity of project or programme stakeholders, both from within and from the peripheral, and how these inter-link to influence the attainment of the expected programme outcomes. Could this be pertinent to the evolving OM theory? I am interested. I will wait for the growth process to take some course.