Theory of change & outcomes frameworks
Theory of change, logic model, outcomes framework, impact measurement approach. Built to be used by your own team — and to hold up with the funder, the board and the acquittal.
Free, 45 minutes, no obligation.
It satisfied the funder at the time. Nobody on the team works with it now.
Outputs are easy to count. Whether anything shifted for the people you serve is much harder to show.
Each measure made sense on its own. Together, they cannot tell you whether the program is producing what it was set up to produce.
The cost shows up at acquittal and renewal. A funder asks what changed, and a framework that can only answer what was delivered. Building a framework that can actually deliver the outcomes from the start is far cheaper than retrofitting one once the program is running.
The pressure to demonstrate impact keeps rising. Funders, boards and regulators increasingly expect organisations to show not just that services were delivered, but that they made a measurable difference to a clearly defined problem. The difficulty is that impact measurement can only ever be as good as the problem definition that precedes it. Measuring outcomes against a problem that has not been accurately defined produces data that is internally consistent and strategically misleading.
Not-for-profits and charities whose funders have started asking harder questions than the annual report currently answers.
Social enterprises that need to substantiate an impact claim to investors, to a social procurement buyer, or to a certification body.
Teams in federal, state and local government, and peak bodies designing a program where the outcomes framework has to be defensible before the first dollar is committed.
Boards that have realised they cannot currently answer the question “how would we know if this stopped working?”
Most impact frameworks fail in one of two directions.
They measure what is easy to count. Attendance, services delivered, people reached. All true, none of it evidence that the problem moved. This produces reports nobody argues with and nobody learns from.
Or they are built for someone else. Designed to satisfy a reporting template, operated reluctantly by staff who see no use in it, and quietly abandoned between funding rounds.
Both have the same root cause: the framework was designed before anyone established precisely what problem the program addresses. Getting that order right is what this work does differently.
Establishing the problem, precisely. Before any indicator is chosen, what the program is actually addressing gets defined sharply enough to be measured against. Frequently this is the step that changes the design.
Making the causal reasoning explicit. Why these activities should produce that outcome, what has to be true for the chain to hold, and where the reasoning is weakest. This is the theory of change, and the weak links are the useful part.
Choosing what to measure. A small number of indicators that would genuinely change your mind, rather than a long list that confirms what you already believe.
Designing for the people who will run it. Data that can realistically be collected by the team you have, at a frequency they can sustain.
A theory of change your team can explain in a meeting without reading from it.
A logic model or outcomes framework in a form your funders recognise and your staff can operate.
An indicator set with the reasoning for each one attached, so future staff know why it is there and when it should be retired.
A documented account of the assumptions the whole thing depends on — which is what makes the framework revisable rather than sacred.
And, when the work reveals it: an honest statement of what cannot credibly be measured with the resources available, which is more useful than a number nobody believes.
Engagements are scoped individually. A theory of change for a single program and an outcomes framework spanning an organisation's whole portfolio are different pieces of work.
Where an organisation is not yet sure whether it needs a full framework, a scoping review is the smaller way to establish that first.
These two get used interchangeably, and they are not the same thing. The distinction matters because it decides what you end up able to learn.
A logic model is the more compact artefact and the one most funders ask for. A theory of change is the one that tells you whether the logic model is defensible — because it makes the conditions explicit, and a condition you have written down is a condition you can go and check.
Most organisations are asked for the logic model and need the theory of change behind it. In practice the work produces both, in that order: the reasoning first, then the one-page version the funder wants.
A theory of change explains why you believe your activities will produce the outcome — the causal reasoning, including the assumptions it depends on. A logic model sets out what flows from what: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes.
There is a diagram of the difference further up this page.
Yes, and often that is the sensible scope. But it is worth knowing what you are getting. A framework built to satisfy a reporting requirement measures what was asked for. A framework built from a properly defined problem measures what would tell you whether the work is succeeding. Those overlap, but not completely, and the gap is where organisations end up with data that is internally consistent and strategically misleading.
That is the design constraint. The work is practical rather than academic: built to be used by the people already in the organisation, and to be explainable to a board and a funder without the consultant in the room. If a framework needs an evaluator present to operate, it has failed.
The design, not the delivery. TKD advisory builds the theory of change, the outcomes framework and the indicator set. It does not run the fieldwork, collect the data, or write the evaluation report.
Part of that is a question of independence. Whoever designs the framework has defined what counts as success, and evaluating against your own definition is a weaker position than it looks, as funders increasingly expect those two roles to sit with different parties and some funding agreements require it outright.
If the evaluation itself needs carrying out, say so early and I will attempt to point towards evaluators who do that work. A framework built with the handover in mind is considerably easier to pick up than one designed in isolation.
It depends on the question, and that is not evasion. A theory of change for one program is a different undertaking from an outcomes framework covering everything an organisation does, and the difference is large enough that any number quoted before that is settled would be misleading.
What is fixed is how the estimate is arrived at: a free first conversation establishes what is actually needed. If you are budgeting for a funding submission and need a figure to work with, mention it in that conversation. That is a reasonable thing to ask for and a reasonable thing to give.
If the question of what success looks like has become difficult to answer, it is usually because the question of what the actual problem is has not been answered first.
Talk through your framework or call +61 475 923 987