The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Most Significant Change Technique

If you've worked in monitoring and evaluation, you’ve probably heard of the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique. It’s a method that doesn’t rely on numbers or graphs, but instead focuses on stories and qualitative insights to understand impact. For those of us drawn to narratives and the human side of data, MSC can be an inspiring tool. But like any approach, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Let’s dig into the strengths and weaknesses of the MSC technique and see if it might be a good fit for your project.

What is the Most Significant Change Technique?

First, a quick overview. MSC is a participatory approach that involves collecting stories about significant changes from people involved in or affected by a project. Then, stakeholders review and discuss these stories to decide which ones they find most significant and why.

Now, let’s look at what MSC does really well, as well as some of the challenges it brings.

Strengths of MSC

1. Captures Rich, Contextual Information

Unlike numbers in a spreadsheet, stories tell us how people actually experience a project. Imagine you’re evaluating a community education programme. Instead of just reporting attendance numbers, MSC lets you hear from a mother who shares how her child’s newfound reading skills are inspiring others in the family to learn too. This type of story reveals ripple effects you’d never catch with a survey.

2. Engages Stakeholders and Builds Ownership

One of the best things about MSC is that it involves stakeholders (like project participants, staff, and community members) in both storytelling and decision-making. When people see their stories being valued and discussed, they feel a stronger connection to the project. For example, in a rural health initiative, the staff might share how seeing patient stories chosen as “most significant” has boosted their motivation and sense of purpose.

3. Adapts to Changing Goals and Contexts

MSC is flexible. You don’t have to lock down your indicators at the start of the project and stick to them rigidly. Instead, you can shift focus as new issues or successes emerge. Say a youth empowerment project starts with a focus on employment, but midway through, the stories reveal that improved mental health is becoming the biggest impact. With MSC, you can explore this new focus without redesigning the entire evaluation framework.

4. Promotes Reflective Learning

MSC encourages reflection and dialogue among team members. When stories are shared, everyone gets a chance to see what’s working, what’s not, and what truly matters to the people served. This can lead to valuable “aha” moments and mid-course corrections. For example, a microfinance project may find that while income levels aren’t skyrocketing, women report feeling more confident and respected in their communities—an outcome that might prompt the team to consider new ways of measuring success.

Weaknesses of MSC

1. Time-Consuming and Resource-Intensive

MSC requires time and effort. Collecting, analysing, and discussing stories can be labour-intensive, especially in large projects. For instance, in a multi-country program, gathering significant change stories from each region could take months. If your team is short-staffed or under tight deadlines, MSC might not be feasible, or you may have to narrow its scope to make it manageable.

2. Subjectivity in Story Selection

Choosing the “most significant” story is inherently subjective, and the choice can sometimes reflect power dynamics rather than genuine consensus. Imagine a scenario where project managers always choose success stories that align with funders’ goals. This may overlook important but less flashy changes, like small shifts in attitudes or early signs of progress. Ensuring a balanced, fair selection process is crucial but challenging.

3. Difficult to Compare Quantitatively

MSC doesn’t generate numbers or easy-to-compare metrics. This can be frustrating if your project needs quantitative data to satisfy funders or show broad trends. For instance, if a literacy project wants to demonstrate that 80% of participants improved their reading skills, MSC alone won’t provide that statistic. To address this, many organisations use MSC alongside quantitative methods to provide a fuller picture.

4. Potential for Bias in Story Collection

There’s a risk of bias in the types of stories collected and shared. If people feel they should only report positive changes, you might miss out on stories of challenges or unintended consequences. To counter this, facilitators need to create a safe environment where people feel comfortable sharing all kinds of stories. For example, in an agriculture project, farmers might initially hesitate to share stories about crop failures if they think it will reflect poorly on the programme.

5. Risk of Overshadowing Broader Trends

While MSC stories offer deep insights, they may not always capture broader trends or systemic changes. A few individual stories from a vocational training programme, for example, might not reflect the reality of most participants, especially if they’re cherry-picked. For this reason, MSC is often best used in combination with other tools to ensure you’re seeing the bigger picture.

Join the webinar on MSC for real world examples of how to use and apply MSC. register here: https://www.annmurraybrown.com/single-post/workshop-on-most-significant-change