Revisiting Theory of Change (Part I)

Here we go.

First off, I recognize yet another discussion around Theory of Change may be a non-starter, as there are genuinely too many discussions (debates, diatribes…) floating about. However, in keeping with the stated intention of this blog, this post will focus on the ToC’s potential to influence program delivery on a day-to-day basis.

How does a ToC influence program delivery?

Every day, program staff make adjustments. And fairly often, programs as a whole make decisions. Less often do we find the opportunity to openly register these choices. The result being, while staff and programs may indeed be managing adaptively, we are doing so tacitly.

And yet, if well-articulated, a ToC provides a sounding board for these adjustments; validation of these decisions.

In essence, a ToC identifies the presumed delivery model underlying these choices: as we are claiming to achieve such-and-such result, how exactly are we going about it? A well-articulated ToC hones in on several elements behind ‘how exactly’ the program is going about things:

• An overarching implementation strategy, unique to the program
• Operational principles that guide the program
• A particular set of activities the program will undertake
• Etc.

Whether expressed as strategy or principles or activities, the presumed delivery model rests on a litany of assumptions**. Why does the program feel this is the appropriate strategy? Do these principles make sense in context? Are the named activities to be ordered sequentially? (This can go on…)

These assumptions are recognized and dealt with in real-time; they are adjusted against; they fuel decision-making. In truth, they influence quite a bit of the day-to-day experience of program staff. The ToC merely embeds these assumptions in its articulation of the delivery model — stating, with intention, that the model is ‘presumed,’ knowing daily adjustments and decisions are consequential.

It is a theory, after all.

How can programs leverage this?

Plain and simple: identify the presumed delivery model. If doing so provides this sounding board — if the ToC is articulated in such a way that it becomes a tool staff refer to in validating ongoing adjustments and decisions — then we can appreciate just how influential it is.

The issue is the extent to which a given ToC meaningfully identifies its presumed delivery model. And if we consider the delivery model to be strategy, principles or sequential activities (above), then under my personal experience a majority of our ToCs fail to elaborate this.

Really? Pray tell

It’s been awhile, so I Googled ‘theory of change’ alongside ‘theory of change USAID,’ to get a sense of what is popping up these days (and to rationalize how I’ll express my next thoughts):

• What is this thing called Theory of Change? (March 2016)
• What is Theory of Change? (??)
• How does Theory of Change work? (??)
• Theory of Change: it’s easier than you think (March 2018)
• Understanding Theory of Change in international development (Aug 2012 — nice on the SEO!)
• Theories of Change (September 2015)

A majority of voices claim the ToC gets to the heart of the ‘how and why’ (their words) behind program trajectory; seemingly, the ‘how and why’ is the same as the delivery model.

Yet this is what we tend to see in practice:

“If Result X is achieved, then Result Y will follow (and eventually Result Z)”

This ToC expresses a results chain of the supposed effects of program delivery…less so the delivery model itself.

If it were to truly emphasize the ‘how and why,’ it might look similar to:

“If we implement Delivery Model A, then Result X will follow (and eventually Result Y)”

This second iteration articulates ‘Delivery Model A,’ and consequently the ‘litany’ of assumptions that influence our day-to-day experience administering the program. This second iteration is grounded in our ongoing adjustments, decisions and choices, and thus more likely to be of use.

There is another difference between these two iterations. In the second, the scope is restricted to Result Y — thereby relinquishing any claim to help us validate our contribution to Result Z.

Is this justifiable? In truth, there is no reason the ToC should not encompass Delivery Model A and each of Results X, Y and Z, so long as they align under the same causal pathway. However, if there is an extent to what we as a program are grappling with on a day-to-day basis, the ToC might do best to not stray beyond this. Again, we are concerned with how our ToC is useful to our team; principally, that it elaborate our delivery model as well as underlying rationale and assumptions to which we have a significant level of reflection. It may be prudent to ground our ToC at more proximate results as opposed to the highest levels of the causal pathway (i.e., Result Z) that do not readily prompt our daily experience, adjustments, choices.

It is stated throughout our sector that the fundamental purpose of a ToC is to fuel reflection and adaptation among program staff. What is stated less purposefully is just how to articulate a ToC with intention. From my experience, this starts with recognizing what is meaningful about our delivery model (versus our results chain), how this brings us closer to our presumptions, and sets us up nicely for ongoing reflection.

Revisiting Theory of Change (Part II)

Next post, I plan to share a visual I developed a couple years back with more detail on how a program’s delivery model can be embedded in its ToC and thereby referred to for continued validation. But I haven’t updated this visual in some time, and should do so before sharing.

**For an excellent overview of ToC assumptions, have a look at the FSN Network’s Theory of Change Based Project Monitoring, Measurement, Learning and Adaptation. Pages 12–13 delineate assumption types: internal logic; methodological; external. Too often, our ToCs articulate only external assumptions less reflective of day-to-day adjustments and decision-making (even as they influence program trajectory in their own right).