Boru Douthwaite: Theory of Change to lever change

Using ToC to lever change

Boru Douthwaite

STEPS/CDI Seminar, University of Sussex, 25 April, 2013

Impact pathways matter

Mechanism

• Using Realistic Evaluation definition (Pawson and Tilley, 1997)

• The mechanism– Make ‘theory in use’ explicit– Reflect on its validity– Narrow gap with ‘espoused theory’ (Argyris & Schön 1974)– Start to change mental models

Outcome

Mechanism

InterventionTriggers

Context

Intervention triggers a mechanism to produce impact in a context

The mechanism through a systems perspective

Intervention 1: Innovation Histories

Participatory Innovation Histories

Experience with Innovation Histories

• Worked well – Researcher learning– Depth of insight– Theory building– Triggers other mechanisms

• Didn’t work so well – Changing practice– Shared learning

• Insight– Politics– Rear view mirror smaller than windscreen

CPWF’s need for ex-ante impact assessment

Intervention 2: PIPA

• Innovation histories written from the future• Synthesis of concepts and tools from:

– Program Evaluation Renger and Titcomb (2002) – problem trees Chen (2005) – program theory Mayne (2004) - performance stories Douthwaite et al. (2003 and 2007) – impact pathway evaluation in

integrated weed management in Northern Nigeria

– Innovation histories Douthwaite and Ashby, 2005

– Appreciative Inquiry Whitney and Trosten-Bloom, 2003

– Social network analysis Cross and Parker, 2004; Rick Davies

Workshop Road Map

1. Problem Tree

2. Outcom es Tree

3. Vis ion

6. Project im pact pathways

4. "Now"network m ap

W hat the pro j ect should helpachieve

Currentarrangement ofactors w orking onPH in Cambodia

Helps understand case rationaleand w hat needs to change

Prob

lem

an

alys

isIn

teg

rati

on

5. Key changes requiredto achieve Vis ion

Sta

keh

old

er

ana

lysi

s

The changes the pro j ect can help achieve, w ho w ill change andpro ject strategies to bring changes about

I ntroduction to new Project ( incl. Learn ing AllianceConcept) , I ntroductions, Expectations

Discussion of how a Learning A lliance m ight work

PI PA Process to surface and com m unicateproject im pact pathways in V ietnam

Next S teps

W orkshop Evaluation

Constructing a Problem Tree

Drawing Network Maps of who is funding, carrying out the research, scaling-out and scaling-up project outputs

Adding ‘Power Towers’ to show differing influence of actors

Developing a Scaling Strategy (Table 2)

Describe the most important

differences between the two networks

Why is the change important to

achieve the vision?

What are the project’s strategies for achieving the

change?    

Exercise

6a

Outcome Logic Model from Workshop Outputs

Reflection on PIPA

• What works well– Space for reflection– Provides a language, set of concepts to link research to

impact– Built a contending coalition

Happy synchronicity • What didn’t work so well

– Making OLMs a contract requirement

It is all about the timing …

Next Steps

• Revive PIPA– Web site– Community of practice

• Measuring the impacts of PIPA• In CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems

– PIPA adapted • In STEPS?• STEPS/CDI – AAS Collaboration?