Impact & MLE 101: Mapping impact pathways
This post is part of a series on impact planning.
How do you plan the change you want to have? Do you write it up in a delivery plan? Do you list a series of milestones on a timeline? Whatever approach you take, this section will help you when mapping your pathway to impact.
We’re going to use logframes and theories of change (ToC from here on in). Both are tools we can use for planning our impact and how we measure it. They can help us communicate our plans with others. They can help us understand what is and isn’t working as we expected.
Logframes and theories of change
In the first in this series, we looked at a chain of events for a technology aiming to improve nutritional status. Here’s that chain again.
This flow of activities is a logical framework, or ‘logframe’. Logframes are clear, methodical ways to break down processes. Like our example, they could look like a single chain, or as a series of pathways. For example:
Here are some hints and tips for drawing logframes.
In reality however, things tend to be a bit more complex. Our project might have multiple interventions with complex interactions. Activities might take place at different times. They might work indirectly but synergistically towards the overall goal. There might be existing feedback processes and diverse partnerships. In these cases, we need something different.
When we need more overview than a logframe, we can use theories of change. Here’s an example of the Newton Fund Theory of change.
It’s also worth comparing this diagram of their previous theory of change.
Immediately we can see that ‘big picture’ sense that a ToC offers — and the complexity that comes with it. Notice also that Newton’s updated ToC moves towards a more conceptual representation, rather than distinct pathways. This conceptual sense is another way that ToCs can differ from logframes.
Try zooming in and following a few sections of the above ToCs. Just as with the logframes, you’ll notice the cascading patterns of outputs into outcomes, working towards an overall impact that we explored in part one of this series¹. Things are more complex but the same fundamentals apply.
Theories of change vary greatly. Looking at a few might help you with planning your own. To help inspire you, there are some examples here and here and here.
Choosing the right impact pathway
So we have logframes which are clear but can be simplistic and ToCs that are complex but can be complicated. These diagrams can exist together and a logframe could also fit inside a ToC. As to which one you should use, that will depend on:
- Size and nature of the project. Larger programmes might require the scale of mapping a ToC offers.
- What you need from the tool. Large, complex ToCs can guide programme development and measurement planning but this comes at a cost of readability. A logframe might give a more focused planning tool and a clearer communications tool.
- Time and resources. Building a ToC can require significant investment (e.g. dedicated staff time interviewing, mapping, developing). This investment might not be suitable for smaller projects where a logframe would suit.
Unless your donor/management/etc. asked for a particular approach, try just sketching some ideas and see which makes more sense.
But don’t start drawing yet! First lets add a few more components to include.
We’ll pick these up in the next section: populating impact pathways.
< Previous section | Guide introduction | Next section >
[1]: Notice also in the recent Newton ToC that the impact section takes place 15 years after the start of the diagram. Keep that idea of the real impact as the long-term vision, although your outcomes might also show evidences of change.
Featured photo by GeoJango Maps on Unsplash
