OUTCOME

MAPPING
Outcome Mapping focuses on changes in the behaviour of the people, groups and organisations influenced
by a project or programme. Like the logical framework, it is a planning methodology that has implications
for how monitoring and evaluation is conducted. However, Outcome Mapping is designed to deal with
complexity, and is not based around linear models of change.

Outcome Mapping was originally developed by the 2. The second stage, Outcome and Performance
International Development Research Centre in Canada. The Monitoring, provides a framework for the ongoing
first comprehensive Outcome Mapping manual was monitoring of the programme's actions and the
produced in 2001. Outcome Mapping seeks to identify and boundary partners' progress toward the achievement of
assess changes in the behaviour of people, groups and ‘outcomes’. Monitoring is based largely on self-
organisations with which a project or programme works assessment.
directly. It does not seek to prove causality or attribution
for those changes, but instead attempts to show logical 3. The third stage, Evaluation Planning, helps the
linkages between the changes and a project or programme identify evaluation priorities and develop an
programme’s activities, thereby enabling contribution to evaluation plan.
change to be understood (Earl et. al. 2001)
These key stages, and the steps within them, are
Outcome Mapping is a participatory planning methodology, summarised in the following diagram. Each of the individual
which has implications for how monitoring and evaluation steps is designed to be addressed at the planning stage,
is conducted. It is based on the principle of participation, using a participatory process, and wherever possible
and purposefully includes those implementing a project or involving a full range of stakeholders. A brief explanation of
programme in both design and data collection to the individual steps of Outcome Mapping is contained
encourage ownership and the use of findings. It was below.
designed to be a “consciousness-raising, consensus-
building, and empowerment tool for those working within a (These explanations are taken directly from the Outcome Mapping
development programme” (ibid, p4). manual produced by Earl et. al. in 2001. Interested readers should
access that manual for a more complete explanation of each
stage, and a set of workshop exercises that can be used to
Some people use the complete Outcome Mapping
facilitate and plan Outcome Mapping.)
methodology, whilst others apply only some of its elements
and principles. Outcome Mapping forms part of a portfolio
of tools and methodologies that address complexity, and
increasingly are being seen as alternatives to the more Intentional Design
linear, measurement-based models of the logical Step 1 Vision
framework and results-based management. Step 2 Mission
Step 3 Boundary partners
Step 4 Outcome challenges
How it works Step 5 Progress markers
Outcome Mapping is designed to be used at the beginning Step 6 Strategy maps
of a programme, after the main focus of that programme Step 7 Organisational practices
has been decided. There are three key stages to planning
an outcome map. Evaluation Planning
Step 12 Evaluation plan
1. The first stage, Intentional Design, helps a programme
establish consensus on the changes it aims to help bring
about, and plan the strategies it will use. It helps answer Outcome and Performance
Monitoring
four questions:
Step 8 Monitoring priorities
• what is the vision to which the project or Step 9 Outcome journals
programme wants to contribute? Step 10 Strategy journal
• who are its boundary partners? Step 11 Performance journal
• what are the changes that are being sought?
• how will the project or programme contribute to
the change process?

© INTRAC 2017
Although the steps are all designed to be used at the towards the desired outcomes of the programme. They are
planning stage, they also set the scene for how monitoring designed to show progress as a group of markers rather
and evaluation will be conducted later on. For example, than as individual indicators, which are more common
journals may be developed that will later be used for when working with logical frameworks. An example of a set
ongoing monitoring of progress markers is shown in the table below.

Firstly, a vision is developed (STEP 1) that reflects the large-

scale, development-related changes that the programme Expect to see • organising staff training to interact with
hopes to encourage. The vision describes economic, partner ... communities better
political, social, or environmental changes that the • inviting communities to contribute
programme hopes to help bring about. The programme’s opinions
activities should contribute to the vision, but not be solely • visiting communities in the field on a
responsible for achieving it. regular basis

Next, a mission statement is developed (STEP 2) that Like to see • developing policies and protocols for
partner ... engaging with communities
describes how the programme intends to support the
• receiving and discussing comments from
vision. The mission statement states the areas in which the
community groups
programme will work towards the vision, but does not list • regularly meeting to consider
all the activities which the programme will carry out. communities’ opinions and comments
• making amendments to projects based
Then boundary partners are identified (STEP 3). These are on community feedback
the individuals, groups, or organisations with which the
programme interacts directly, and where there will be Love to see • developing projects and programmes
opportunities for influence (see diagram below). Boundary partner ... alongside communities
partners may be individual organisations but might also • inviting community representatives onto
include multiple individuals, groups, or organisations if a decision-making forums
similar change is being sought across many different groups • being accountable to communities
through regularly reporting on progress
(for example, research centres or community groups).
and lessons learned

In STEP 6 a strategy map is developed to help identify the

Boundary strategies used by the program to contribute to the
Partners achievement of each outcome challenge. For most
outcome challenges, a mixed set of strategies is used
because it is believed this has a greater potential for
success.
PROGRAMME
The purpose of STEP 7 is to identify the organisational
practices that the programme will use to be effective.
These organisational practices describe a well-performing
organisation that has the potential to support the boundary
THE REAL WORLD
partners and sustain change interventions over time.

Monitoring priorities are then identified (STEP 8) to focus

time and resources on where they are most needed.
Monitoring priorities are divided into three areas:
organisational practices; progress toward the outcomes
In STEP 4 an outcome challenge statement is developed for
being achieved by boundary partners; and the strategies
each boundary partner. It describes how the behaviour,
that the programme is employing to encourage change in
relationships, activities or actions of the individual, group,
its boundary partners.
or institution will change if the programme is extremely
successful. Outcome challenges are phrased in a way that STEPS 9-11 consist of the establishment of journals to
emphasises behavioural change. monitor progress over time in the three areas described
above. Firstly, an outcome journal is established to record
A set of progress markers are then identified (STEP 5) for
changes for each boundary partner. It includes the progress
each boundary partner. These are desired visible,
markers set out in step 5; a description of the level of
behavioural changes ranging from the minimum one would
change as low, medium, or high; and a place to record who
expect to see the boundary partners doing as an early
among the boundary partners exhibited the change.
response to the programme, to what it would like to see,
and finally to what it would love to see them doing if the Then, in order to provide the programme with a systematic
programme were having a profound influence. way to monitor its actions in support of its boundary
partners, Outcome Mapping provides a strategy journal,
These progress markers represent changes that are easily
which can be adapted. This journal records data on the
measurable, and will show if progress is being made
© INTRAC 2017
strategies being employed, and is filled in during the  Because of its focus on boundary partners, Outcome
programme's regular monitoring meetings. Mapping is good at dealing with programmes with a
special focus on organisational change. It can therefore
A performance journal is also created for the programme be used to support the monitoring and evaluation of
which records data on how it is operating as an capacity development – an area which people find
organisation to fulfil its mission. This is also filled in during particularly difficult to assess using more linear tools
regular monitoring meetings. (see Simister and Smith 2010).

The final step (STEP 12) is to develop a descriptive plan of a However, Outcome Mapping is not appropriate in all
proposed evaluation for the programme. This outlines the circumstances. Some of its limitations have been described
evaluation issue, the way findings will be used, the as follows.
questions, sources and methods to be used, the nature of
the evaluation team, the proposed dates and the  Because it deals with contribution rather than
approximate cost. This information is intended to guide the attribution it cannot easily be used for processes that
evaluation design. require hard measurement of results, such as cost-
benefit analysis or value for money assessment.
 As with any participatory methodology, Outcome
Strengths and weaknesses Mapping requires a great deal of time, effort and
Unlike some advocates of the logical framework approach patience to do well. Significant resources are required
to planning, supporters of Outcome Mapping do not claim both in terms of programme staff and the people,
it is appropriate in all situations. This, added to the fact that groups and organisations being supported.
Outcome Mapping is rarely forced on organisations as a  Outcome Mapping may be best used at the level of
condition of funding, means debates surrounding Outcome small programmes or larger projects. It is not a tool that
Mapping are less intense than those surrounding the logical is necessarily appropriate for handling large, complex
framework. But there is still a divergence of opinion; some programmes, because it may be difficult to identify who
who have used Outcome Mapping love it as a will change and how. Earl et. al. (2001) point out that to
methodology, and some dislike it. be effective Outcome Mapping must be sufficiently
specific to enable the identification of key groups who
Some of Outcome Mapping’s strengths can be listed as
will be influenced by a programme. Equally, Outcome
follows.
Mapping may not be appropriate for small projects
 It introduces monitoring and evaluation at an early where the investment of time needed would not be
stage of a programme, and ensures that monitoring and proportional to the likely benefits.
evaluation is built into programme design.  The journaling approach to tracking progress means the
 Outcome Mapping is a participatory tool and therefore technique generates a lot of data, creating challenges
encourages multi-stakeholder dialogue, as well as for data analysis.
learning amongst different participants. It is designed to  Outcome Mapping is good at identifying changes within
contribute to the development process itself. supported groups who are part of the process, partly
 Because it is based on outcomes of observable because it encourages self-reflection and self-
behaviour change, it can be more intuitive for field assessment. It may not be so useful for identifying
workers to grasp than the sometimes more abstract change for people, organisations or groups that lie
language of objectives. outside a programme, such as the targets of policy
influencing work.
 It encourages programmes to assess both the outcomes
of programmes – therefore focusing clearly on change –  Outcome Mapping does not focus predominantly on
and the processes through which those outcomes are impact assessment. It recognises the need to look at
generated. long-term changes in people’s lives brought about by
development interventions, but regards this as the
 It is much better than linear planning tools at dealing responsibility of a programme’s boundary partners. If
with complexity. Outcome Mapping does not seek to donors require in-depth impact assessment then
show direct attribution for change resulting from a Outcome Mapping needs to be supplemented by other
single source. This means Outcome Mapping may be tools and methodologies.
more appropriate for the monitoring and evaluation of
programmes with multiple inputs.  In comparison with the logical framework, Outcome
Mapping is less able to provide a short, concise
 Because Outcome Mapping involves the identification summary of a project, programme or organisation.
of a spread of possible outcomes (progress markers)
ranging from those stakeholders expect to see to those
they would like or love to see, it avoids the need for
precise predictions about the pace of change at the
Adaptations
beginning of a project or programme. This means it is Although Outcome Mapping can be, and frequently is, used
particularly useful when the pace of change cannot as a methodology in its entirety, it is often adapted, and
easily be predicted. can be used in conjunction with other methodologies such

© INTRAC 2017
as the logical framework. Indeed it is perfectly possible to love to see levels – are often used, even when the entire
embed an Outcome Map within a logical framework, or set methodology is not. Many CSOs have also carried out work
logframe indicators that can be generated by Outcome that is based on the principles of Outcome Mapping – such
Mapping processes. as participatory planning, understanding of complexity,
valuing contribution rather than attribution – without
Individual features of Outcome Mapping – such as the necessarily adopting the process in its entirety.
setting of progress markers at expect to see, like to see and

Further reading and resources

The M&E Universe contains other papers dealing with subjects that address complexity within planning, monitoring and
evaluation. These include Theory of Change, scenario planning and most significant change methodology.

The logical framework Scenario planning

Theory of Change Most Significant Change

The most comprehensive guide to Outcome Mapping is a guide written by Earl et. al. in 2001 (see reference below). This is
available at www.outcomemapping.ca/download/OM_English_final.pdf. There is also an Outcome Mapping community website
at www.outcomemapping.ca which is regularly updated and contains much information on how Outcome Mapping is being used
and applied. Further information, and a more comprehensive reading list for Outcome Mapping, can be found at the Better
Evaluation website at http://betterevaluation.org/

References
 Earl, S; Carden, F and Smutylo, T (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programmes.
Evaluation Unit, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada.
 Simister, N and Smith, R (2010). Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building: Is it really that difficult? Praxis paper no. 23,
INTRAC, January 2010.

Author(s): INTRAC is a not-for-profit organisation that builds the skills and knowledge of civil society
Neil MacDonald organisations to be more effective in addressing poverty and inequality. Since 1992 INTRAC has
and Nigel Simister provided specialist support in monitoring and evaluation, working with people to develop their own
M&E approaches and tools, based on their needs. We encourage appropriate and practical M&E,
based on understanding what works in different contexts.

INTRAC Training M&E Universe

M&E Training & Consultancy M&E Universe
We support skills development and learning on a range of For more papers in
INTRAC’s team ofhigh
themes through M&E specialists
quality offer consultancy
and engaging and
face-to-face, For
themore
M&Epapers in
Universe
training in all aspects of M&E, from core
online and tailor-made training and coaching.skills development the series
M&E Universe
click the
through to the design of complex M&E systems. series
homeclick the
button
Email: training@intrac.org Tel: +44 (0)1865 201851 home button
Email: info@intrac.org Tel: +44 (0)1865 201851

© INTRAC 2017