How do you compare and contrast different change evaluation methods and tools?

1 Kirkpatrick's model

One of the most widely used and recognized change evaluation methods is Kirkpatrick's model, which evaluates change based on four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. This model helps you measure how well your change interventions were received, understood, applied, and achieved by your target audience. However, some of the drawbacks of this model are that it can be time-consuming, costly, and subjective, and that it does not account for external factors or unintended consequences that may affect change outcomes.

2 Logic model

Another popular change evaluation method is the logic model, which maps out the logical relationships between the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of your change project. This model helps you clarify your change objectives, assumptions, and indicators, and communicate them to your stakeholders. However, some of the challenges of this model are that it can be oversimplified, rigid, and linear, and that it does not capture the complexity, dynamics, and uncertainties of change processes.

3 Balanced scorecard

A more comprehensive and strategic change evaluation tool is the balanced scorecard, which evaluates change from four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. This tool helps you align your change vision, mission, and goals with your performance measures, targets, and initiatives, and balance your short-term and long-term outcomes. However, some of the limitations of this tool are that it can be difficult to implement, maintain, and integrate, and that it may not reflect the diverse needs and expectations of your stakeholders.

4 Appreciative inquiry

A more innovative and participatory change evaluation method is appreciative inquiry, which evaluates change based on the strengths, opportunities, and aspirations of your organization and its members. This method helps you foster a positive and collaborative culture of change, and generate creative and sustainable solutions. However, some of the risks of this method are that it can be unrealistic, biased, and superficial, and that it may ignore the challenges, conflicts, and gaps that need to be addressed.

5 Mixed methods

A more flexible and holistic change evaluation approach is mixed methods, which combines quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques to capture the multiple dimensions and perspectives of change. This approach helps you enhance the validity, reliability, and richness of your change evaluation findings, and address the limitations and gaps of single methods. However, some of the difficulties of this approach are that it can be complex, time-consuming, and resource-intensive, and that it requires careful planning, integration, and interpretation of data.

6 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?