Theory in Practice

In my previous post on designing and implementing adaptive MEL frameworks , I discussed the importance of a program’s Theory of Change (TOC) in facilitating understanding among your team and your stakeholders on what change looks like. The biggest challenge facing most programs, however, is that TOC is often mistaken for another form or version of a results chain/log frame/results framework. While they are not mutually exclusive, they are not the same. The important distinction is that the TOC needs to iterate the theory behind the change you are seeking to enable, not just the process. The process is iterated in a results chain that specifies the tangible results you are pursuing driven by the theory. In an adaptive program, your results chain (i.e.: activities and outputs) can change depending on the initial results you are observing and the reflections that are being undertaken about what should happen next. The ‘what comes next’ reflections need to be based on something, and

*This is an adapted version of an article I drafted for the SIAP SIAGA program, which can be found here .  In 2019, I began working on a program that set itself the challenge of implementing a systems change, adaptive approach in order to leverage the results of previous programs in that sector, as well as to take into account the increasing complexity of development programming in a middle-income country. This type of program required a different type of monitoring framework – one that could capture changes in the system based on the results of the program, as well as be adaptive to the adjustments in program implementation over time. With adaptive monitoring still in its infancy (in practice, despite the plethora of theoretical information available on line), there were few practical experiences and good practices to draw on to facilitate the design of the monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) framework. There were more resources on monitoring systems change, but as with any pr

Back in November 2022, I attended the Australasian Aid Conference (AAC2022) where my colleague, Ancilla Bere, and I presented the work of a program I am working on related to the learning and good practice we have accumulated on systems change in disaster management in Indonesia. The presentation assessed some of the methodologies and approaches that we have found to be successful for shifting mindsets around systems thinking, as well as some of the higher profile changes that we have begun to witness.  You can read the full article which was prepared following the conference on DevPolicy here . Can a systems change approach improve disaster management?   By Denika Blacklock and Ancilla Bere on Feb 17, 2023 06:00 am The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami triggered a shift in thinking in disaster management in Indonesia, from reactive response and recovery towards preparedness, mitigation and risk reduction. It was a major turning point for the Government of Indonesia in addressing disaste

 

As the COVID-19 economic recovery progresses, and the world works towards resuming some sort of normalcy in our daily lives (and I get back to writing on this blog!), more emphasis needs to be placed on reflecting on what happened during COVID-19. Not just the stress of online schooling (oh boy), the working from home (video off as I was usually still in my pjs), and the loss of time with friends and family (I haven’t seen my family in 2.5 years… soon to be rectified!). No, what we need to focus on is what we have learned about our work – no matter what sector or what type of work you undertake, we all learned that business as usual (BAU) practices simply could not cope with the shock to the economic and social systems we live in. In my line of work, and in my perspective, one of the biggest questions that has emerged is whether the development community is capable of truly improving the resilience of communities – whether to climate, disaster, economic or health shocks. I recently p

One of the issues that I’m struggling to wrap my head around is meeting donor requirements while trying to implement an adaptive project. One the one hand, everyone from the donor to the government is on board with the approach, although the government is still a bit wary about the amount of risk they will need to take on in order to see this approach through to the end. On the other hand, donor templates and guidance are still very prescriptive, and examples are entirely linear in their approach. Moreover, examples used in guidance are very concrete (vaccination interventions seem to be a favourite), unlike the less-defined, system-level intervention my colleagues and I are working on.