Enhancing Learning in the M&E Process: Outcome Mapping in Ecuador

This 5-page article describes and assesses outcome mapping (OM), a methodology for planning, monitoring, and evaluating development initiatives. It emerged from the Ceja Andina initiative, which is working to ensure the sustainability of agriculture and forest biodiversity in the Andes of northern Ecuador. Funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and implemented by an Ecuadorian research non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Corporación EcoPar, the project engages a diverse range of stakeholders, from farmer research groups to local municipalities, in efforts to develop knowledge, capacities, and social learning to support community-based natural resource management. OM was developed as part of a participatory process on the part of Ceja Andina project team members and stakeholders, who - from the very beginning of the project - sought to meet monitoring and evaluation (M&E) objectives (e.g., accountability) while at the same time placing a high priority on collective and individual learning.

As detailed here, the OM methodology is not designed to produce "voluminous reports" recording all the things a project has done to "achieve impact" (e.g., as measured by material goals such as an increase in the number of trees planted). Instead, the goal is to identify and analyse the complex behavioural changes taking place in the individuals and groups taking part in the project and - crucially - to understand what worked and what didn't in fostering and/or impeding those changes - from the perspective of those actually involved. The ultimate goal is to develop strategies in accordance with this shared learning and insight.

Along these lines, author Kaia Ambrose notes that OM is best used as a "facilitated participatory and inclusive process", with "outcomes" defined as "changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities or actions of the people, groups and organisations that are within the project's ability to influence."

Concretely, OM involves 3 stages - intentional design, outcome and performance monitoring, and evaluation planning - and offers a variety of tools that can help programmes or projects to "map out" the changes they intend to support, in order to better understand the processes of change, improve effectiveness in achieving results, and ensure accountability while engaging in multi-stakeholder learning. The "map" is co-created, examined, and analysed by project teams and other actors during participatory planning sessions. In the case of Ceja Andina, this process also involved 2-day monitoring workshops with boundary partners, held every 6 months.

Reflecting on this process, Ambrose concludes that OM "is not a panacea". In practice, the exercise that Ceja Andina engaged in created even more questions - resulting in fruitful reflection and dialogue on M&E in general. While Ambrose stresses that OM should not be conceived of as a replacement for the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) (editor's note: for one explanation of this approach, see Wikipedia), she suggests that the two methodologies (OM and LFA) can complement each other nicely. Further, Ambrose stresses that OM "is only as good as the facilitation that is used to apply it", and suggests that "an understanding of OM's central concepts - behavioural change, contribution and not attribution, finding the balance between accountability and learning - is vital."

Despite these challenges, the OM process for Ceja Andina was "iterative but successful" in telling the story of what happened, as well as in engaging multiple stakeholders in critical reflection on an initiative from diverse perspectives, particularly those related to behavioural change.