toc workshop report

8/3/2019 Toc Workshop Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toc-workshop-report 1/26

Ruvicyn S. Bayot, Ahmad Salahuddin

Boru Douthwaite

Dhaka, Bangladesh

29-30 October 2011

Ganges Theory of Change Workshop



2

Ganges Theory of Change Workshop

Hotel Lake Castle, Dhaka, Bangladesh

October 29-30, 2011

Facilitators:

Dr. Boru Douthwaite, Innovation and Impact Director, CPWF

Dr. Ahmad Salahuddin, Consultant, IRRI

Ms. Ruvicyn Bayot, Assistant Manager II, IRRI/ CPWF

Organizers:

Mr. William Collis, Chief of Party, CSISA

Dr Nowsher Ali Sarder, Ganges Basin Leader, CPWF

This report is a documentation of the workshop process and outputs. The facilitators would like to

acknowledge the workshop participants for the insights and inputs presented in this report.

If you have any questions or need for clarification regarding this report, please email Dr. Boru

Douthwaite, [email protected].

Photos by: R.S. Bayot

Figures by: B. Douthwaite, R.S. Bayot and the participants

mailto:[email protected]






3

Table of ContentsRationale ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Objective ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Outputs ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Agenda .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Introductions and Expectations .................................................................................................................... 7

Problem Tree................................................................................................................................................. 9

CSISA 1 Problem Tree .......................................................................................................................... 11

CSISA 2 Problem Tree .......................................................................................................................... 12

CPWF 1 Problem Tree ......................................................................................................................... 14CPWF 2 Problem Tree ......................................................................................................................... 16

Validate the project’s visions ...................................................................................................................... 18

Network Map .............................................................................................................................................. 18

What are the key network changes? .................................................................................................. 19

What did you learn about the process? .............................................................................................. 21

Outcome Logic Model ................................................................................................................................. 21

How does the OLM exercise go? ......................................................................................................... 22

Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 22

Workshop Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 24

Review of Day 1 ................................................................................................................................... 24

Review of Day 2 ................................................................................................................................... 24

Participants ................................................................................................................................................. 26

Table 1. Participants in Groups .................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 1. The PIPA Process ............................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2. Participants introducing themselves to each other and discussing their expectations ................ 7

Figure 3. Expectations .................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. A Problem Tree produced by a CPWF project in the Nile basin .................................................... 9

Figure 5. Translating the Problem Tree to Objective Tree ......................................................................... 10

Figure 6. CSISA 1 group creating their Problem Tree.................................................................................. 11



4

Figure 7. CSISA 1 Problem Tree ................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. CSISA 2 group creating their Problem Tree.................................................................................. 12

Figure 9. CSISA 2 Problem Tree ................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 10. CPWF 1 group creating their Problem Tree ............................................................................... 14

Figure 11. CPWF 1 Problem Tree ................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 12. CPWF 2 group creating their Problem Tree .............................................................................. 16

Figure 13. CPWF 2 Problem Tree ................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 14. Ganges BDC Network Map (by funding source) ........................................................................ 18

Figure 15. CSISA 1 group developing their network map .......................................................................... 19

Figure 16. CSISA 2 group developing their network map .......................................................................... 20

Figure 17. CPWF developing their network map ....................................................................................... 21

Figure 18. OLM Table in the CPWF Workbook ........................................................................................... 22

Figure 19. OTIB Plan Sheet in the CPWF Workbook .................................................................................. 23



5

Rationale

If research is to have an impact then people must use the outputs, knowledge and insights it generates.

This means that researchers and their organizations must link to next users and end users of their

research. What a project or program does and who it does with to achieve impact is called its Theory of

Change (ToC). Programs with clear and plausible ToC are more likely to be supported, more likely to

achieve impact, and easier to monitor. This workshop will introduce participants to Participatory Impact

Pathways Analysis (PIPA) as a way of articulating ToC, and using it in program planning and monitoring.

Objective

The workshop aims to make the participants understand and apply ToC concepts and tools in their

projects and programs, including Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (PIPA), outcomes logic models,

problem trees, visioning and network mapping.

Outputs1. Outcomes logic models for each program, describing near-term expected/achieved changes

resulting from project activities, and longer term contribution to developmental impact in

Bangladesh and the Ganges basin.

2. Basin network maps showing who is working with whom in Bangladesh and the Ganges basin.

The network maps are useful for planning and monitoring basin-level integration.

Process

Participants, in groups, developed the theory of change of the CPWF Ganges BDC program of work and

CSISA, and expressed it in the form of an outcomes logic model (see Figure 1). The outcomes logic

model describes who needs to change for the project/ program to achieve its vision and what the

project needs to do to achieve those changes.

Table 1. Participants in Groups

Group 1 – CSISA 1 Group 2 – CSISA 21. Dinabandhu Pandit, CIMMYT

2. Md. Shahjahan, CIMMYT

3. M.A. Saleque, IRRI

4. Md. Harunur Rashid, IRRI

5. Gopal Chandra Datta, WorldFish

6. Md. Mazharul Islam (Zahangir), WorldFish

7. Md. Mokarrom Hossain, WorldFish

8. Sattya Roy, CSISA

1. Frederick Rossi, CIMMYT

2. A.B.M. Tajul Islam, IRRI

3. A.K.M. Ferdous, IRRI

4. Maksudur Rahman, IRRI

5. Ashoke Kumar Sarker, WorldFish

6. Benjamin Bolton, WorldFish

7. Benoy Barman, WorldFish

8. Murshed E-Jahan, WorldFish

Group 3 – CPWF 1 Group 4 – CPWF 21. Camelia Dewan, G3

2. Md. Emdad Hossain, G5

3. Md. Sirajull Islam, G5

4. Ahmad Salahuddin, Facilitator

5. Martin van Brakel, CPWF

1. Farhana Akhter Kamal, G4

2. Zahir Ul-Haque Khan, G4

3. Charlie Crissman, G5

4. Nowsher Ali Sarder, G5

5. Salma Sultana, G5



6

Figure 1. The PIPA Process

Agenda

Day 1 PurposeIntroductions and workshop expectations Introduction to Theory of Change

Participants introduction to each other and their

expectations

Coffee

Drawing project problem trees, clarifying project

visions, and identifying project outputs

To clarify and communicate the rationale of CSISA

and CPWF Ganges BDC in terms of the problems

the two projects are addressing, and how solving

these problems will contribute to eventual impact

Lunch

Presentation and comparison of project problem

trees

Understand that different groups produce

different problem analyses of the same project

and that combining them makes for stronger

theory of change of CSISA and CPWF Ganges BDC

Coffee

Introduction to concepts of scaling out and upthrough networks

Understand role of networks in developing andspreading new technologies and ideas and become

familiar with key network concepts

Construction of project networks Project map their networks

Review of the day



7

Day 2 PurposeIdentification of main network changes required to

achieve project visions

Projects identify key relationship changes required

to achieve impact, and identify concrete actions to

bring them about

Coffee

Presentation and comparison of network mapsand main changes required for impact Participants gain a better understanding of CSISAand CPWF Ganges networks of influence

Lunch

Introduction to logic models Participants learn what logic models are

Development of outcomes logic model Participants learn how to express theory of change

in an outcome logic model

Coffee

Introduction to monitoring Participants learn how the outcome logic model

can provide a framework for monitoring

Workshop evaluation and closure

ResourcesIntroduction to Theory of Change

CPWM Monitoring and Evaluation Guide

Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (wikipedia)

Impact Pathways Online Manual

Other related documents

Introductions and Expectations

The participants were asked to introduce themselves to the people in the room they don’t know very

well, and together discuss their expectations of the workshop. They wrote their expectations on whitecards (one idea per card). The facilitators read the expectations and gave immediate feedback, whether

their expectations will be met by the end of the workshop, may be met after the workshop, or would

not be met.

Figure 2. Participants introducing themselves to each other and discussing their expectations

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0P3lZ7KsMY6Y2UxNTkzNjgtYzljZC00YzAxLWIyNjgtNjdmYTc4NzZmYTEw&hl=en_US


http://monitoring.cpwf.info/background/theory-of-change


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_impact_pathways_analysis


http://boru.pbworks.com/w/page/13774903/FrontPage


https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B0P3lZ7KsMY6NmEzZTI0YzEtNGQyZS00YTJiLWIxOWMtMDI3MGVlMzc1Njk2









8

Figure 3. Expectations

The following are the expectations that will be met by the end of the workshop

• To understand why ToC is important and what are its components

• To learn to define outputs, activities, outcomes, etc.• To learn the steps of ToC (in this workshop we will learn about of the steps of PIPA)

o To develop a problem tree

o To develop an OLM

• To find out the difference between Impact Pathway and Theory of Change

• To find out the difference between OLM and LFA

• To learn to develop an impact pathway and understand the process on how research can

influence impact on the target communities

• To understand how ToC integrates project activities and outputs of a program

• To practically integrated ToC in planning and M&E

• To improve research implementation

The following expectations may be met but not within the duration of the workshop

• How to use the ToC in CSISA

• How the project/ program outputs can be sustained

The following expectations may be achieved if the participants will use the learning from the workshop

• How to incorporate ToC in other projects

• What are the easy ways for impact analysis

• How to upscale the research outcomes



9

Problem Tree

A problem tree shows the cause and effect logic, which begins with the identification of the problems

the project could potentially address, and ends up with the problems the project would directly address.

Figure 4. A Problem Tree produced by a CPWF project in the Nile basin

Starting from the broader problem, participants asked ‘why the problem is happening’, in several

iterations, until they came up with a set of determinants. These determinants can then be translated to

products, and the problem tree to objective tree.

Depressed

Livelihoods

LimitedReservoir

Productivity

Underused

FisheriesProductionCapacity

Bad HarvestingStrategies

Uncooperativeattitudes of fishers

with respect tomanagement of

fisheries resources

Lack of knowledgeof options of

enhancementtechnologies

Processinglimitations

Lack of aquaculture

activities

Start Here

Determinants

Lack of financialresources capacity

to implement

scenarios forimproved fisheries

production

1st LEVEL

2nd LEVEL3rd LEVEL4th LEVEL Why is this problem happening?

Why?Why?Why?

Problem

PN 34 Improved fisheries productivity Problem Tree



1 0

Figure 5. Translating the Problem Tree to Objective Tree

The participants, in groups, developed their own problem trees using colored cards. They were asked to

write one problem per card. One group of each project presented their problem tree, while the others

critique.



1 1

CSISA 1 Problem Tree

Figure 6. CSISA 1 group creating their Problem Tree

The group presented a problem tree for CSISA that is focused on one aspect – adoption of varieties and

adaptation of appropriate NRM. They also presented overarching issues like less participation of women, poor infrastructure, and poor market linkage.

Figure 7. CSISA 1 Problem Tree



1 2

CSISA 2 Problem Tree

Figure 8. CSISA 2 group creating their Problem Tree

The group presented a yellow/ blue column of problems causing the low productivity of agriculture and

aquaculture systems in Bangladesh, and a green column corresponding to the approaches to address

the problems. The yellow boxes are the issues that the project is explicitly addressing



1 3

Figure 9. CSISA 2 Problem Tree



1 4

CPWF 1 Problem Tree

Figure 10. CPWF 1 group creating their Problem Tree

The group presented a more simplistic problem tree focusing on susceptibility to the effects of climate

change, water management issues, and lack of appropriate strategies to bring technologies to farmers.



1 5

Figure 11. CPWF 1 Problem Tree



1 6

CPWF 2 Problem Tree

Figure 12. CPWF 2 group creating their Problem Tree

The group began by presenting the identified factors affecting the increasing poverty level in the coastal

Bangladesh. The factors are grouped into less agriculture and aquaculture productivity, lessopportunities for livelihood, and susceptibility to natural and man-made disasters. The factors are

further explained by the underlying factors (pink boxes). The green boxes correspond to the outputs to

be produced by the program.



1 7

Figure 13. CPWF 2 Problem Tree



1 8

Validate the project’s visionsThe participants were asked to discuss in group:

• Who needs to do what differently to achieve the vision?

• Is the vision realistic?

• How would you change it?

Network MapA network is a collection of people and/ or things that are connected to each other by some kind of

relationship. Many kind of entities can be part of the network: people, projects, organizations, etc.

Each of these entities can have different levels of influence in the network. Moreover, there are many

kinds of relationships that can link such entities, involving transmission or exchange of information.

People’s access and involvement in networks if affected by gender, social status, wealth, physical

location, etc.

Figure 14. Ganges BDC Network Map (by funding source)

The participants, in groups, were asked to list down stakeholders of the projects and draw four network

maps: by funding, by research, by scaling-out mechanism, and by scaling-up mechanism.



1 9

Instructions:

• Use post its for nodes

• Put a red dot to indicate the project implementers

• To describe relationships, use arrows to describe direction

• Use color to describe relationship typeo Green = funding

o Blue = research/ work

o Red = scaling out

o Black = scaling up

• Put the most connected nodes in the middle and try to minimize lines crossing

Afterwards, the groups discussed the most important changes in the network, why these changes are

important to the project, and the proposed strategies to make the changes happen.

What are the key network changes?

CSISA 1

Figure 15. CSISA 1 group developing their network map

Most important changes Why is it important? StrategiesDAE, BARC, BFRI, BADC, DOF to be

more involved in the

implementation

More resources

Nationwide extension network

Create agreements

Resources for capacity building and

participation in the project activities

BRAC, RDRS, CODEC, Sushilon More resources

Strong local existence

Capacity to mobilize

Credit

Resources

Capacity building

MOU/ MOA

See companies (fish/ crops)

Input suppliers

Ensure quality inputs

Capacity building

MOA – become important partners

in project implementation



2 0

CSISA 2

Figure 16. CSISA 2 group developing their network map

Most important changes Why is it important? Strategies

DAE, DOF to be more responsive tofarmers Their mandate is extensionNeed to rely on them to reach many

farmers

MOUToT

High level capacity building

NGOs (JCF, ASPADA, BDS, BS, etc.)

to be more involved in grassroots

implementation

Credit support

Large scale scaling-out

Direct link to farmers (field level)

Networking development

MOA

ToT

Group formation

Workshops/ capacity building

Research organizations (BRRI, BARI,

BFRI, BINA) to be more involved in

variety and technology

development

PRT, ART

Expertise

Demand-driven research

MOA

ToT development

Workshops

On-station trials

Higher level capacity building

Networking developmentPrivate Sector (IDE, Feed Mills, Seed

Companies)

Market-led linkages

Project sustainability

Quality inputs

Demand-led changes

MOA

Training (capacity building)

Consulting

Networking

Forming of associations



2 1

CPWF

Figure 17. CPWF developing their network map

Most important changes Why is it important? Strategies

Establish network linkages betweenprivate sectors and CBOs Scaling out AwarenessPartnership

Develop business model

Use BRAC network

DOF and DAE Scaling out and up Interactive workshop

Meeting

UP Scaling out

Network with WMI

Collaborative field visit

Inform and involve UPs

MOF, MOA and MOWR Scaling out

Policy change

Member of advisory committee

Quarterly meeting

Donor Future funding

Sustainability

Successful implementation

Impact showing

What did you learn about the process?

• The discussion draws out things that we may not think of individually

• So many institutions are interlinked. The linkages are now more visible and more

understandable

• Developing the linkages was not easy

• Identify strong linkages between CPWF Ganges BDC and CSISA (develop complementary or joint

activities between projects)

• Involve water bodies administrations at the local level (upazilla level) in the dissemination,

because the DAE does not have direct control on the farmers/ farmer groups.

Outcome Logic ModelThe outcome logic model (OLM) is a description of the project’s impact pathways. It is presented as a

table with each line describing a potential impact pathway or statement of an outcome to be achieved.

It integrated the linear and actor-oriented perspectives.



2 2

The participants were asked to fill out the OLM table in the CPWF Project Workbook. As an exercise,

they will develop at least two outcome pathways with their selected actors from the network.

Figure 18. OLM Table in the CPWF Workbook

How does the OLM exercise go?

• Identifying the outputs is a problem. Outputs and strategies got mixed together.

Monitoring and Evaluation

How running M&E tools cover the activities to impact chain

Actor(s) Desired change in actor(s)

practice

Required change in actor KAS

for change to happen

Project strategies and

prototypes for bringing about

changes

Project outputs Risks and Assumptions

Hint: How will your project contributeto make these changes happen?

What are your ideas on how to

help people change?

Here, it may help to think what

other projects have done before

that has NOT worked well- what

will your project do that is

different? Better? Strategies can

be the way (for example, co-

develop instead of impose) you do

things. Strategies are also the

timing, methods, partnerships,

‘language’, etc. you choose to use

Outcome

Pathway 1

Narrative 1

Outcome

Pathway 2

Narrative 2

Start with this question: if this project is successful, WHO will

change? What groups of people

or organizations will be

affected? Be realistic,

and prioritize the most 'affected'.

Then, try to be as specific about

the actor groups as possible- in

some actor groups as possible- in

some cases you have the names

or exact location of the actor(s)-

use them here.

A change in practice or behavior isa change in the way people (in

this case, the 'actors' in the 1st

column) DO things. So here, try to

use action words- such as 'use',

'coordinate', 'plant', 'participate

in', 'integrate', 'implement', etc.

To be able to 'use' something, people usually need to first know/

understand it, and its advantages,

and/ or have developed the

skills to use it, or at least

to believe or trust the benefits of

using it. Look at your practice

change, and make explicit 2-4 KAS

changes that are key to having

the actor groups change their

practice.

These come straight out of your road map/ research questions

and/ or your contracted

deliverables. Which is (are) your

project's main output (s) related

to this 'line of change’?

Explain the main risks to achievingthe outcomes described in this

pathway, and the main

assumptions upon which the

outcomes are based

[A narrative description of the causal logic in the outcome pathway linking project outputs and strategy to changes in KAS and practice of targeted actor(s)]

[A narrative description of the causal logic in the outcome pathway linking project outputs and strategy to changes in KAS and practice of targeted actor(s)]

Longer term impact

Initial impact

Outcomes

Outputs

Activities

Gantt chart and milestone

plan

OLM

Impact Narrative

Outcome targets

Milestones

Baseline Plan

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0P3lZ7KsMY6ZWMzYzQ4NmUtN2UzZS00MzFjLWFiODctZjIwNmMzNTNmMWU0&hl=en_US






2 3

After completing their OLM table, the participants started working on the Outcome Target, Indicator

and Baseline (OTIB) Plan. This is one of the tools used by project evaluators to monitor the progress of

the project through their target indicators.

Figure 19. OTIB Plan Sheet in the CPWF Workbook

Outcome Target, Indicator and Baseline (OTIB) Plan

Project Name

Date

No. Main Project Outcome: ACTOR and how

they will CHANGE

Outcome target(s) Indicator(s) of progress towards

Outcome Target(s)

Tools to measure progress

towards Outcome Target(s)

How will the starting conditions be

established, against which progress

is to be mearured? (i.e., the

baseline plan)

Actor and how they will change -- taken from

the first two columns of the OLM

Specific description(s) of who/ how many

exactly the project expects to change

(Practice and/or KAS) and by how much,

by the end of the Project. There can be

more than one Outcome Target per each

What will you observe and measure to

know change is happening?

What will be your tools and methods

to observe and measure your progress

towards the Outcome Target ?

The tools and methods you would use

to establish a necessary baseline

Choose the key two to four outcome pathways where the project expects to make the most contribution. For each outcome pathway set an outcome target, or targets, select an indicator or indicators,

describe the methods and tools you propose to use to measure progress. Finally describe how you will establish the starting conditions (the baseline) against progress will be measured. What you

actually implement from this plan will depend on negotiations between the Project Leader and the Basin Leader as part of developing a BDC-level M&E system. Paste this worksheet into your project

Workbook if not already included



2 4

Workshop Evaluation

Review of Day 1

• Learned new methodologies

• Glad to learn about the Theory of Change approach

• Understand theory of change• Before, I have a limited grasp of all the components. Learning more of the finer points and the

techniques is better

• We were able to develop problem tree with many branches

• Appreciate the linkages with different programs

• Long day

• Participatory

• Very interesting

• Very nice day

• Enjoyed the exercise

• Nice

• Can’t wait for tomorrow• Good energy

• We now know what we are trying to achieve

• We have changed

• Visioning exercise is though provoking. Can we revise our visions?

• Working together, share experience, knowledge and vision

• Will utilize whatever we learned today in our project

• G5 can do a video

• Good CSISA-CPWF dynamic

• Complementarities of program of work

Review of Day 2• I would like to see us use this for our work plan, monitoring plan

• Revisit and improve our OLM. It will allow us to monitor and manage our project and budget

properly

• CSISA is already in the middle of its implementation. How will we make use of this learning?

• This workshop is more suitable to project monitoring people

• Brought new ideas

• Happy with the workshop

• The approach was cool

• Helpful for me as an M&E person

• Facilitator is very sincere

• An innovative approach• I will try to implement it in my work. I will compare it with other tools, and then decide which

tool to use.

• Donors/ programs require different approach

• Opportunity to sharpen my thinking as a hub manager.



2 5

• Theory of Change/ PIPA (4x)• Problem Trees (5x)

• Scaling up and out

• Network mapping with

influence and scale (7x)

• OLM/ Interrelationship between

output and outcome in a logical

framework (5x)• Monitoring plan

• Collaboration between CSISA and CPWF

(2x)

• Possibility of renegotiating project targets in

light of ToC activities

• Will be used in next proposal writing (2x)

• Approach: not too heavy on ideas but focused

on process

• PIPA (2x)

• Problem tree (12x)

• Network mapping/Identification of key

network changes required

for vision (13x)• OLM/ Difference between

outcome and output (5x)• Training approach: participatory;

interactive; exercises; well developed

(3x)• Shared learning between CSISA and CPWF

• Definition of ToC (6x)• Interlink of different logic models used in other

projects

• Monitoring and evaluation using OLM (3x)

• How to integrate this with the planningstructure set by USAID

• How ToC can be applied in the middle of

project implementation

• How farmers would earn $350

• More on meta-analysis and actively identify

bottlenecks as qualitative M&E exercise

• Need to give example of other models

besides ToC; link PME with PIPA; link

logframe with PIPA (5x)• Clarify some concept

• More time for more exercises(7x)

• Involve M&E people

• More spread of participants (various

disciplines, levels)

• Provide an easier format for OLM (2x)

• Remove the need for laptops; work together

on a sheet; handout the Google docs

• Schedule a similar workshop earlier in the

project cycle (planning stage)

• Use with farmer groups/ communities



2 6

Participants

Name Institution Email Address

1. Dinabandhu Pandit CIMMYT [email protected]

2. Frederick Rossi CIMMYT [email protected]

3. Md. Shahjahan CIMMYT [email protected]

4. A.B.M. Tajul Islam IRRI [email protected]

5. A.K.M. Ferdous IRRI [email protected]

6. Maksudur Rahman IRRI [email protected]

7. M.A. Saleque IRRI [email protected]

8. Md. Harunur Rashid IRRI [email protected]

9. Ashoke Kumar Sarker WFC [email protected]

10. Benjamin Belton WFC [email protected]

11. Gopal Chandra Datta WFC [email protected]

12. Md. Mazhurul Islam WFC [email protected]

13. Md. Mokarrom Hossain WFC [email protected]

14. Murshed E-Jahan WFC [email protected]

15. Sattya Roy CSISA [email protected]

16. Benoy Kumar Barman G2/ WFC [email protected]

17. Camelia Dewan G3/ IWMI [email protected]

18. Farhana Akhter Kamal G4/ IWM [email protected]

19. Zahir Ul-Haque Khan G4/ IWM [email protected]

20. Charlie Crissman G5/ WFC [email protected]

21. Md. Emdad Hossain G5/ WFC [email protected]

22. Md. Sirajul Islam G5/ BRAC [email protected]

23. Nowsher Ali Sarder G5/ WFC [email protected]

24. Salma Saltana G5/ WFC [email protected]

25. Martin van Brakel CPWF [email protected]

toc workshop report

Documents