Features of steps and outcomes appearing within outcomes models

This article outlines the six main features of the steps and outcomes which can be included within any outcomes model. Outcomes models are visual models which set out all of the steps and outcomes which lead from a program or intervention right up to final high-level outcomes. In conjunction with the concept of the five basic building-blocks of outcomes systems, this approach provides part of the conceptual basis for analyzing the adequacy and functioning of any particular outcomes systems. It also avoids much of the currently confused discussion about such systems which stems from the lack of a common conceptual framework for analyzing and describing these systems. 

Features of the steps and outcomes that can appear in an outcomes model

There are six major features of the steps or outcomesthat can potentially be included in an outcomes model. There are many different names given to the steps and outcomes within such outcomes models. For instance, outputs, key drivers, intermediate outcomes, key priorities, final outcomes, impacts, long-term outcomes etc. These terms are often used without clear definitions. In outcomes theory, the elements which can be put into any outcomes model are referred to by the generic term ‘steps and outcomes’. Any particular type of step or outcome (e.g. input, output, key driver, intermediate outcome etc.) should be able to be formally defined using the six major features of steps and outcomes listed below. 

Such steps or outcomes which are included in outcomes models of any type can have one or more of the following features. They can be:

Relevant – relevant to outcomes it is hoped will be influenced by a program or intervention. All steps in outcomes models should have this feature. It should be noted that it also includes steps which are are not-necessarily able to be influenced by a program or intervention themselves but which may influence the possibility of a program or intervention influencing a higher-level outcome (e.g. these are often referred to as risks or assumptions within some types of outcomes models).   

Influenceable - able to be influenced by a program or intervention. This is a hypothetical claim that a higher-level step or outcome is able to be influenced by a particular program or intervention. It is not yet a claim that it will be able to be proved in a particular case that the program or intervention did actually influence the higher-level step or outcome (this stronger claim is referred to as being demonstrably attributable and is discussed below).

Controllable - only influenced by one particular program or intervention. This is a claim that in the normal course of events the only significant factor influencing a higher-level step or outcome is the program or intervention. As a consequence, if the higher-level step improves then it can be concluded that it was the program or intervention which caused it to improve. 

Measurable - able to be measured. A separate issue in regard to steps or outcomes is whether or not they are able to be measured. Measurablity is a function of the feasibility and affordability of measurement at any point in time.

Demonstrably attributable - able to be demonstrated that changes in the step or outcome can be attributed to one particular program or intervention (i.e. proved that only one particular program or intervention changed it). This is the claim that it can be proved that a particular program or intervention changed a higher-level step or outcome in a particular instance. This is a separate claim from the claim set out above that a higher-level step or outcome is influenceable by a program or intervention.

Accountable (Rewardable or Punishable) - something that a particular program or intervention will be rewarded or punished for. It should not always be assumed that just because a change in a high-level step or outcome is demonstrably attributable to a program or intervention that the program or intervention should necessarily be held accountable for it. In some cases there may be mitigating circumstances which mean that it is inappropriate to reward or punish a program or intervention for a change in a high-level step or outcome. In other words because the step or outcome has been influenced by a relevant step (as defined above).

To illustrate how these features can be used to define terms often used in outcomes systems we can look at defining an output. Using the features described above, an output is a step in an outcomes model that is – relevant, influencable, controllable, measurable, provable and accountable. We could also define an intermediate outcome using the features described above. If someone is asking for an intermediate outcome to be identified for a particular program or intervention we can ask them to define exactly what they mean in terms of these six features of steps or outcomes. Are they wanting something that is just relevant and influencable. Do they also want it to be measurable. Are they wanting it to be demonstrably attributable and accountable also. This approach to specifying the features of the steps and outcomes that are put into outcomes models provides a much more robust approach than just asking programs to provide intermediate outcomes without clearly specifying their features.

Conclusion

Please comment on this article

This article is based on the developing area of outcomes theory which is still in a relatively early stage of development. Please critique any of the arguments laid out in this article so that they can be improved through critical examination and reflection.

Citing this article

Duignan, P. (2009). Features of steps and outcomes appearing in outcomes models. Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base Article No. 208. (http://knol.google.com/k/paul-duignan-phd/features-of-steps-and-outcomes/2m7zd68aaz774/20).

[If you are reading this in a PDF or printed copy, the web page version may have been updated].