Theory of Change and the Theory of Action- Do you want to achieve REAL change?

If you have been in the development profession long enough, you will know the feeling. Stranded around a table for a full 14 hours, cheap coffee smells filtering the air and endless, endless flipcharts and post-it notes as you embark on the design of your programme.

Out of this usually comes out some funky terms- logical framework, Results-Based Management and, Theory of Change.

Easy to ridicule- and I have been there- but used appropriately, these tools are not only important but necessary if you wish to achieve real change in your programme.

This is my case for not only the Theory of Change but also for Theories of Action.

What is real change?

We could argue, but let's say for now that real change is achieving outcomes which lead to real benefits:

* Your global campaign has raised awareness and improved the lives of people around the world.

* Your transformational changes to an organization has made it more efficient and effective at achieving better results, whilst also improving the working environment for your personnel.

Change is not the delivery of a campaign- it is achieving benefits for the people because of the campaign. Change is not delivering a new organization chart and renewed policies- it is that the organization is delivering better results.

Theory of Change- what is it and what goes wrong?

A Theory of Change is essentially a casual pathway of how the programme hopes change will happen due to our interventions. The basic structure is to logically set out Inputs- Outputs- Outcomes- Impact (I will not define these here) and develop casual pathways between them.

At the start of programme design, mapping change is vital in understanding our desired future state and a Theory of Change (TOC) is one model we can use to demonstrate this.

There are two common problems with the TOC.

1-     due to the complexity you can get lost in 14 hour round table meetings, the stench of coffee… please see above…. as you all debate and produce academic anecdotes on how the change will actually occur. How do vaccinations lead to healthier recipients? What about the effects of a poor harvest that may occur on the recipient's health? What if they refuse it?

The debate goes on and on to no firm conclusion.

2-     The TOC, due to its simplicity, is often challenged in not actually representing reality and in fact, is best placed in a desk draw- if I am busy managing organizational transformation, why on earth would I reach out for my theory of change…. At all?!

Source

Theories of Action, the saviour of the Theory of Change

That these two issues persist is a shame. All programme management theory states that we need a vision for a Future State and a path on how we get there.

The Theory of Change has its uses but, as a growing literature is demonstrating, it requires a further step; a collaborative, complementary partner which will ground it in the reality of our programme implementation at the earliest of stages in our design. Step up, Theories of Action.

A Theory of Action is essentially your first moment to ask “How” and “Is this realistic”. A theory of change is a hypothesis which may, or may not, turn out to be true. One of the major reasons that it may prove to be incorrect is that it simply does not reflect the way you intend to deliver a programme. A theory of change will consider assumptions and research, but is unlikely to consider what you are going to do, what is your delivery model.

This is where the Theory of Action can assist, it grounds the Theory of Change in reality by asking:

·        Which Partner will deliver?

·        What will they deliver?

·        How will they deliver it?

The Theory of Action is not a work plan- as this is to be considered once you have finalized the design of the Programme in the Inception Phase. But it does ask the broad, basic questions at a time when you may not be considering how implementation looks. This is why it is a “Theory”- we may change the way we approach things during inception.

If these questions are not asked, then the Theory of Change remains a purely academic approach, something which may prove to be true or not, but there is no logic connecting its assertions to the actions of the programme which we are undertaking.

For each level of the Theory of Change, the three questions above should be asked. So, for example, when moving from Inputs to Outputs:

·        What partner will deliver the Outputs?

·        What will they do to deliver the Outputs?

·        How will they deliver the Outputs?

These questions become even more important when you are considering the higher levels of the Theory of Change.

We deliver Real Change

We are in the business of delivering outcomes and real change, not outputs. It is much harder to achieve outcomes and real change than it is to achieve outputs because the delivery approach is not as clear and does not guarantee the desired results. This is where an agile, data-driven and communicative approach to action is required, otherwise, the outcomes, and thus our desired change, will not be achieved. 

A Theory of Action can thus ask- how do we deliver outcomes, who will deliver those outcomes and what will they need to deliver them? This engrains the concentration of Action away from simply delivering outputs and more towards delivering Outcomes from the very design phase of the programme.

A Theory of Action gives us a better chance in realizing outcomes and real change.

Summary

Any programme at the design stage has to confirm its current state, its desired future state and a causal pathway required to get to the desired future state. A Theory of Change is one means to do this, but it risks being irrelevant if it is not accompanied with a theory of action; asking the important overarching implementation questions early on in programme design.

Further Readings

What is a Theory of Action?

Why Write a Theory of Action?

Benefits management: how Siemens focuses on benefits to accelerate value delivery