Participatory Evaluation Forum - Refocus Institute: Of Outputs and Outcomes

Not only are EVALTALKers on about terminology, but defining specific terminology in strategic planning and evaluation seems to elude those studying the process as well. My lamentation is coming out of an online course I've been teaching on using a logical framework for strategic planning. Now, say what you will about logframes, I know not everyone loves them, but I find them to be particularly useful for those new to project planning and management, like the students in this course.

Anyway, the main confusion comes from the gap between outputs and intermediate outcomes. Just so we are on the same page, here is the logframe model that I work with, which is a variation made popular in Japan.

The big problem with outputs vs. intermediate outcomes comes during evaluation. From the model, you can see that outputs are a function of project implementation. This means that they are the direct results of activities. So, you are enumerating things like total number of people trained, total number of publications distributed, or total number of people contacted. When you are evaluating your efficiency, or your project's implementation, you look at inputs to outputs. This is important to understand because in order to demonstrate that your project is being efficiently managed you need to show that you are accomplishing something and doing so within a reasonable expense. 

Now, if you have an intermediate outcome erroneously categorized as an output, for instance increased knowledge in a target group, then it is more difficult to demonstrate your project's efficiency. This is because you cannot specifically control people's ability to acquire knowledge, but you can control how many people you train. So, if you plan to train 10 people and you successfully train 10 people then your project's efficiency is great -- 100%. However, if you train 10 people, but only 5 of them understand and implement what you teach them, and if increased knowledge is an output, then your efficiency suffers --only 50%. Now, if you were to put increased knowledge as an intermediate outcome, then, using the same figures, you would have 100% efficiency and 50% effectiveness, which isn't so bad overall. 

The other issue with mis-categorizing outputs comes when you are trying to improve your project's performance. Failing to reach a targeted output is a management issue, while failing to reach a targeted intermediate outcome is a logic issue. Each requiring a different correction approach.

Bottom line is there is nothing wrong with the thought process behind mis-categorized outputs, but you may end paying the price during evaluation time. And if your funding depends on your ability to demonstrate results through evaluation, you should especially take heed of this warning.