TOOL #65. HOW TO USE VISUAL AIDS AND PRESENT QUANTITATIVE DATA · TOOL #65. HOW TO USE VISUAL AIDS AND PRESENT QUANTITATIVE DATA 1. INTRODUCTION Many interventions deal with a complex

TOOL #65. HOW TO USE VISUAL AIDS AND PRESENT QUANTITATIVE DATA

1. INTRODUCTION

Many interventions deal with a complex range of issues and highly technical subject

matter. Illustrations and visual aids can provide both expert and non-expert readers with a

clear overview of the problems and their drivers, policy objectives and solutions, as well

as the different steps in the analytical process.

This tool presents three visual aids which are particularly relevant for policy

interventions: problem trees, objective trees and intervention logic diagrams. These tools

can help illustrate complex ideas and facilitate common understanding and better

communication both inside the Commission and with external stakeholders. The text

below also presents tips on how to present quantitative data clearly.

2. PROBLEM TREES

What are problem trees?

A problem tree is a highly effective communication tool that helps to demonstrate the

need for intervention. It is used to visualise the identified problems, the interactions

between these problems, their underlying drivers and likely consequences. The output is

a graphical presentation of problems arranged according to ‘causes’ and ‘effects,’ joined

by a core, or focal, problem. The problem tree should provide a simplified but robust

representation of the reality. It also encourages a logical, comprehensive and coherent

narrative and structure to the analytical process and report.

How to create problem trees

The graphs can be created in MS Word, Excel, equivalent open-source tools or

specialised software such as DoView, MS Visio, Smart Draw or Lucidchart.

Box 1 shows an example on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by

certain large companies and groups (amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and

83/349/EEC)766. The links between the problems, their drivers and the consequences can

be clearly seen. For example, poor quality financial information is a problem that is

caused, inter-alia, by a lack of incentive for companies to disclose such information.

Problem trees can also usefully illustrate what is outside the scope of the EU

intervention; for instance because not all of the problem(s) can or should be addressed by

EU level action. The example in Box 2 on the initiative on e-invoicing in public

procurement767 illustrates this:

766 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0127&from=EN


http://www.doview.com/

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/visio/

http://www.smartdraw.com/

https://www.lucidchart.com/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0127&from=EN


337

Box 1. Problem tree on the disclosure of nonfinancial and diversity information by

certain large companies and groups

Insu

ffic

ient

ince

nti

ves

for

com

pan

ies

to h

ave

div

ersi

fied

Boar

ds

Insu

ffic

ien

t ch

all

en

ge o

f se

nio

r m

an

agem

en

t deci

sion

s by t

he

Board

Insu

ffic

ient

div

ersi

ty

of

vie

ws

wit

hin

the

Boar

d (

group

thin

k)

Tra

nsp

are

ncy

: in

suff

icie

nt

qu

ali

ty o

f n

on

-fin

an

cial

info

rmati

on

Dis

close

d info

rmat

ion i

s not

suff

icie

ntl

y m

ater

ial, a

ccu

rate

,

tim

ely

, cl

ear,

com

par

able

, an

d

reliab

le

Tra

nsp

are

ncy

: in

suff

icie

nt qu

an

tity

of

non

-fin

an

cial

info

rmati

on

.

~ 9

4%

of

EU

lar

ge c

om

pan

ies

do n

ot

dis

close

any

non

-fin

anci

al i

nfo

rmat

ion

(incl

udin

g div

ersi

ty)

Reg

ula

tory

Fai

lure

:

AD

req

uir

emen

t

inef

fect

ive.

Leg

al

fram

ework

frag

men

ted,

wit

h

sign

ific

ant

dif

fere

nce

s

amongs

t M

ember

Sta

tes

Mar

ket

Fai

lure

: In

suff

icie

nt/

unev

en i

nce

nti

ves

for

com

pan

ies

to d

iscl

ose

non

-fin

anci

al i

nfo

rmat

ion

des

pit

e an

incr

easi

ng

dem

and f

rom

sta

keh

old

ers

Com

pan

ies

perc

eiv

ed a

s n

ot

suff

icie

ntl

y a

ccou

nta

ble

an

d

un

met

info

rmati

on

dem

an

ds

from

civ

il s

oci

ety

Less

eff

icie

nt

mark

ets

: in

ves

tors

m

ay f

ail

to b

uild r

elev

ant

non

-

finan

cial

info

rmat

ion i

nto

thei

r

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g p

roce

ss/t

ake

info

rmed

dec

isio

ns

Low

er

com

pan

ies'

perf

orm

an

ce

Pote

nti

al inef

fect

ive

over

sigh

t by

the

Boar

d.

Man

agem

ent

and B

oar

ds

may

not

fully

inte

grat

e non

-fin

anci

al i

ssues

into

busi

nes

s an

d s

trat

egy

Insu

ffic

ient

iden

tifi

cati

on o

f

risk

s an

d o

pp

ort

unit

ies

in

gener

al

Imp

acts

on t

rust

in

busi

nes

s an

d t

he

mar

ket

Subop

tim

al a

lloca

tion o

f

cap

ital

Sin

gle

Mar

ket

pote

nti

al f

or

sust

ainab

le g

row

th a

nd e

mp

loy

men

t not

fully

exp

loit

ed

Dri

ver

s

Pro

ble

ms

Conse

quen

ces

338

Box 2. Problem tree on e-invoicing

3. OBJECTIVE TREES

The "objectives tree" is a graphical illustration of the different layers of objectives. Box

3 illustrates how the different levels of objectives can be represented graphically. It is an

example of the Directive 2009/142/EC relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels

(GAD)768.

Box 3. Objective tree concerning appliances burning gaseous fuels.

General objective Specific objective

Better protect health and safety of

users of gas appliances and fittings as

well as to ensure their appropriate

performance

Ensure that economic operators have

adequate safety and performance relevant

data available on the framework conditions

Ensure clarity of the requirements

Improve the fair playing field for

economic operators in the gas

appliance sector

Ensure legal clarity regarding the application

of more specific EU product harmonisation

legislation

Simplify the European regulation

environment in the field of gas

appliances and fittings

Ensure that legislation is up to date

Ensure clarity of the scope



339

4. INTERVENTION LOGIC DIAGRAMS

Intervention logic diagrams/result-chains are synthetic and diagrammatic representations

of the different steps of the analytical process. They can help to improve the coherence of

the report, by making the links between problems, objectives and options more explicit.

Box 4 shows how a diagram can be used to map the problems and objectives and relates

to the initiative laying down maximum authorized weights and dimensions for certain

road vehicles circulating within the Community769.

Box 4. Intervention logic diagram: authorized weights of road vehicles

Problem/Driver Objective

Problem (Part 1)

Certain limits on weights and dimensions

set by the Directive constitute obstacles to

energy efficiency improvements of road

vehicles and to intermodal transport

operations

General objective (Part 1)

To facilitate energy efficiency of road

transport and intermodal transport by

revising certain limits on weights and

dimensions of vehicles while maintaining

the balance with the requirements of

infrastructure maintenance, road safety

and the protection of the environment.

Root cause 1

Certain maximum weights and dimensions

prevent the market uptake of more

aerodynamic electric hybrid trucks and

reduce the attractiveness of certain coach

services.

Specific objective 1

To enable the market uptake of more

aerodynamic electric hybrid trucks and to

increase the attractiveness of certain coach

services.

Root cause 2

Certain maximum weights and dimensions

have not kept pace with the technical

development of intermodal transport and

containerisation.


To enhance the development of

intermodal/combined transport

Problem (Part 2)

The Directive is not applied in an effective

manner.

General objective (Part 2)

To improve the internal market for road

transport by providing a fairer playing

field for hauliers.

Root cause 3

Lack of common and dissuasive

enforcement methods.


To ensure better enforcement of the

maximum weights and dimensions across

the EU.

It is also possible to map objectives with policy options (in the IA context) or

implemented measures (in the context of retrospective evaluation) – Box 5 contains an

example from the IA accompanying the initiative laying down maximum authorized

weights and dimensions for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community. To

address the problem and its drivers, and given the substantial list of possible measures



340

needed, it was proposed to form policy packages (PP) of measures for further assessment.

This example shows an overview of measures proposed in three policy packages.

Box 5. Intervention logic mapping objectives to policy options (packages).

In evaluation, the intervention logic provides a description or diagram summarising how

the intervention was expected to work. Usually this shows how different

inputs/activities/outputs triggered by the EU intervention were expected to interact to

deliver the promised changes over time and ultimately achieve the objectives. The

intervention logic should also consider external factors which may influence both the

performance of the EU intervention, or generate the same type of effects.

The evaluation intervention logic is a dynamic took and it is quite normal for it to

develop further during the evaluation project as assumptions are tested. The final

intervention logic may look quite different to the initial starting point, providing key

input to the evaluation on how actual behaviours and performance differed from original

expectations.

Box 6. Describing causal pathways

In evaluation, the concept of intervention logic combines elements of similar

methodologies. Among others, it involves ideas from the Logframe approach and the

Theory of Change. Both approaches are used to describe causal pathways in interventions

and the mechanisms that enable them.

Theory of Change is usually oriented towards the objectives that are intended to be

achieved under specific conditions. This concept is employed to show how activities

towards the objectives on the one hand and outcomes on the other can be connected in

various ways and through different mechanisms. Theories of Change are often used in

early stages of an intervention and serve as a tool to engage stakeholders and the persons

who will implement the intervention. They usually try to capture as many factors in the

341

environment of the (potential) programme as possible that might facilitate or hinder the

intended change.

The Logframe approach is an analytical tool to reconstruct the causal pathways between

needs, overall and specific objectives, resources, activities, output, outcomes, and the

impact of a specific intervention. External factors beyond the control of the intervention

are included in the model in case they influence its effects.

The differences between the Logframe approach and the Theory of Change are not clear-

cut and they are used in various definitions. In application, their meaning often overlaps.

Some examples of intervention logics used in evaluation are presented below. Others can

be found on the evaluation collaborative space770.

Intervention logic for the Birds and Habitats directives:

770 https://myintracomm-collab.ec.europa.eu/networks/IAWG/eval_network/SitePages/Home.aspx

https://myintracomm-collab.ec.europa.eu/networks/IAWG/eval_network/SitePages/Home.aspx

Intervention logic for health and nutrition claims

DRIVERS PROBLEMS General

OBJECTIVES Operational OBJECTIVES

INPUTS: Actions by

public authorities, food business operators, EFSA

OUTPUTS

RESULTS

Lack of truthful, clear, reliable and useful information for consumer on the nutritional status of foods

Foods contain false health claims and thus mislead the consumer

Problems with the free circulation of foods bearing nutrition and health claims in the Internal Market

No level playing field for food business operators for making health and nutrition claims on foods

High level of consumer protection from untruthful and misleading claims and facilitating consumers' healthier food choices

Improve the free movement of foods bearing nutrition and health claims within the Internal Market

Guarantee legal certainty for food business operators on the use of nutrition and health claims

Ensure the same level of scientific evidence for the substantiation of nutrition and health claims

Ensure that only authorised nutrition and health claims may be used on the EU market

Ensure that nutrition and health claims are coherent with nutritional advice

Regulatory framework requiring scientific substantiation of nutrition and health claims

Absence of scientific criteria for making nutrition and health claims on foods

Different rules governing the use of nutrition and health claims made on foods in different Member States

A harmonised list of permitted nutrition claims

Conditions for the use of nutrition and health claims

Restriction of claims on alcoholic beverages

Nutrient profiles the establishment of nutrient profiles

A harmonised list of authorised health claims

Ensure fair competition in the area of foods bearing nutrition and health claims

Procedure for the establishment of the list of authorised health claims by the collection of national lists by Member States, scientific evaluation by EFSA, adoption of the list of authorised health claims by Commission

Procedure for authorisation of new health claims via application by Food Business Operators, scientific evaluation by EFSA, authorisation by Commission

- Harmonised use of nutrition and health claims

- Better alignment of nutrition and health claims with nutritional advice by public health authorities

- Increased trust of consumer in nutrition and health claims

- Reduction of misleading nutrition and health claims on foods marketed in the EU

- Smoother functioning of the internal market

- Legal certainty for food business operators when using health and nutrition claims

- Fair competition in the area of foods bearing nutrition and health claims by creating a level playing field for food business operators

5. PRESENTING QUANTITATIVE DATA

How to present quantitative data?

Data can be presented in the text, in a table, or pictorially as a chart, diagram or graph.

Any of these may be appropriate for demonstration. Detailed tables should be put in an

annex, with a summary in the main text for demonstration purposes. In general the

following is a guide to presenting numerical data:

Text alone should not be used to convey more than three or four numbers.

Sets of numerical results should usually be presented as tables or graphs: (a) well-

presented tables and graphs can concisely summarise information which would be

difficult to describe in words alone; (b) on the other hand, poorly presented tables and

graphs can be confusing or irrelevant.

The text should always include mention of the key points in a table or graph. If it does

not warrant discussion it should not be there. You should ensure the message in the text

is consistent with that in the table.

There are two main types of graph:

• Line graphs can show more detail than bar charts. They should be used when the

horizontal axis represents a continuous quantity (such as time).

• When the horizontal axis is a qualitative factor - such as countries, products, etc. -

bar charts are natural.

Tables used for demonstration purpose are intended to be assimilated quickly by the

reader. They should be clear and well-presented and reduce numbers to relatively few

significant digits.

It is preferable not to use overly large tables: (a) if the information is all necessary, split it

into manageable components; (b) omit any column which can be readily calculated from

data in other columns. Less relevant categories can be combined.

344

Box 7. Tables versus graphs

In general, tables are better than graphs for giving structured numeric information. For

instance:

In general, graphs are better than tables for indicating trends, making comparisons, or

showing relationships.

Good practice

Tables and graphs should be self-explanatory: the reader should be able to understand

them without detailed reference to the text; users may well pick things up from tables or

graphs without reading the whole text.

The titles of the tables/graphs should be informative

Rows and columns of tables or axes of graphs should be clearly labelled: what is

measured, where, units, timeframe, source (as relevant)

345

Box 8. Clear tables

A first version sent to the IAB:

Revised version:

Comparing options in the IA report

In order to be an effective aid to decision-making, the IA reports need to present a

credible set of alternative policy options, and their comparison should clearly outline

the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Visual aids can be helpful in this

regard.

A variety of presentational options are frequently included in multi-criteria analysis

which can reduce efforts for presenting the comparison of options (in particular these

tools frequently offer useful complementary views such as ranking by type of

stakeholder).

Radar charts

Radar charts can be used to compare options. They are particularly well-suited to show

outliers and commonalities or when one option outranks another; they are less well-

suited to show trade-offs. To make any sense, you need at least 5 quantifiable criteria.

The order of criteria is important to convey meaning.

346

Box 9. Example of visual aids used to compare options

Example 1: IA on communication analysing the specific challenges for the space components

of GMES (Global monitoring for environment and security). “In quantitative terms, the

options can be compared most easily on the basis of their generated NPV in the period under

consideration.”

Is this the most appropriate kind of graph? The IA report presents the graph below

instead: different styles of graphs can

enhance clarity and generate interest

Example 2:

347

Box 10. Example of radar charts

TOOL #65. HOW TO USE VISUAL AIDS AND PRESENT QUANTITATIVE DATA · TOOL #65. HOW TO USE VISUAL AIDS AND PRESENT QUANTITATIVE DATA 1. INTRODUCTION Many interventions deal with a complex

Documents