Setting strategy, and sticking to it, can be an arduous climb. Done successfully, it's remarkably satisfying.

The key is having the right tools and knowing how to get the most out of them. In the same vein as rope, ladders, pitons, and gloves are indispensable climbers' tools, logic models are an important tool for both planning and evaluation in the non-profit and social service sectors.

Over the years we have seen examples of strong models being implemented in the strategy and evaluation efforts of different organizations. When they work, program outcomes are enhanced. But we have also seen our share of situations where logic models were treated as some kind of add-on activity to ‘regular’ program or project management. The logic models in these cases were mainly used to construct a graphical depiction of a team’s wishful thinking. In such cases the models were not been anything more than just a piece of presentation material with no impact on strategy.

Starting here, and in four future posts, we’ll lay out some tips that can augment the success of your logic modeling. Should you choose to use some of the excellent material available on the web that can guide you in using the building blocks of logic models (such as 10 Great Resources for Creating a Theory of Change from the Philanthropy411 Blog), our hope is that these tips will enhance the process.

Tip 1. In designing your logic model, remember that it’s a process and it should involve people.

We’ve seen too many examples of attractively designed models that, in the end, pursue goals that were neither necessary nor achievable. Often was the case that the designers focused on the diagram itself, and the different techniques and formulas to draw and construct logic models, instead of looking at the process around building the logic model.

To leverage the strengths that logic models can provide, it is crucial to predicate the design on the input of stakeholders with field-expertise who you involve in uncovering the root causes to problems you seek to solve. In a pluralistic fashion, the stakeholders should help you depict the landscape for the initiative (more on this in Tip 2) in such a way that a program team can target relevant, valid causes to a problem.

Also, include measurement and evaluation in the people-process right away. Involve key people who are inextricably linked to the success of the project you are modeling. For instance, if you have a project to build the capacity of teachers, invite teachers into the logic modeling process to discuss inputs and indicators.

Because designing a logic model is a process, never treat it as a “one and done.” Don’t be trapped by false pressures to develop the best, perfect model in one fell swoop. Because good logic models are derived from good processes, take the time to draw several, to think through different scenarios with your stakeholders, and assess the potential impacts of the different versions. (More on this in the forthcoming tips.)

Next tip: Depicting the landscape to strengthen your logic model

The total amount Sweden spends on regional development is at least 100 times bigger than the biggest number that fits on the display of a regular calculator. We are talking about the Regional Growth Programs, the EU Structural Funds, The Rural Development Program, The European Fisheries Fund, The Regional Service Programs and others like them. Progress is most evident in initiatives that address bottlenecks and barriers blocking the way for improvements. In most initiatives I believe we would expect that fixing the problems is part of the strategy.

However, in a review we made recently of the regional strategies for the implementation of the Rural Development Program in the different regions in Sweden we discovered that problems and priorities in many cases do not match. The priorities set in a strategy do not reflect the conclusions in the SWOT analysis. In other words, it is not clear how the measures planned in a strategy will address challenges that exist in the area. Of course, this does not apply to all strategies. Some regions have a great strategy, but alas, they are way too few.

When we hold seminars and presentations at events and conferences involving public officials we frequently ask if anyone has ever experienced working in a program that, when completed, was unable to demonstrate tangible results. We get roars of laughter. We see nods of recognition from all directions in the room. People confirm they have seen large amounts paid out through programs that only had marginal impact, or less. Public benefit programs are not the only types of project that suffer this sort of fate.

We wonder why this is the case. Is it because we routinely think in terms of inputs rather than results? Perhaps this is not so strange after all. Any kind of grant system is about the distribution of money. And money is an input. The more money we spend the bigger the input, right? In reality, however, results do not only depend on the size of the sum alone. The best results are produced by adequate measures and performance. To get to that, we need to build on the analysis and understand what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

We are also noticing that more and more people are dedicated to ensuring we get more value from public spending. Do you have the same impression? I believe that today both directors and managers at our public agencies are striving for tangible progress. Surely, everyone wants to do a good job.

The theme of the TCI annual global conference Oct 2009 in Jyväskylä, Finland is “Learning Clusters”. We are joining business leaders, cluster coaches, funders and researchers who will investigate ways to enhance competitiveness on a global market.  We will partner with VINNOVA, Sweden, to present insights on what’s really essential in a cluster leadership. Our workshop with VINNOVA “How to significantly shorten time-to-impact and create tangible change”, is designed to demonstrate a hands-on approach for leaders on how to establish and maintain a Learning Cluster.

VINNOVA used OpenEye’s visualization technique to uncover how a program can be designed to have the best possible impact. In the process VINNOVA discovered that any program that has a social dimension, which indeed all programs or clusters have, needs to be continuously reinvented. Why?  Because, the area in which we are working will change continuously. It will change both as a result of what we do and as a result of changes in the world around us. So, in order to stay on course we must be prepared to review our inputs and actions over and over. From our experience the message is clear – The basis of a successful design for impact is a good learning strategy.

At the TCI conference, we will talk about how strategic planning and evaluation work significantly better when they go hand in hand. Consequently, we argue that it is necessary to evaluate from DAY 1 in order to learn, revise and reinvent the strategy focusing on the factors that will influence your progress starting tomorrow.

Evaluation is becoming an increasingly important theme in cluster development. More people are becoming aware of the importance of getting early confirmation of progress rather than waiting to see if the ultimate economic goals of cluster policies, such as wage growth and number of new employees, are met. As a cluster goes through several stages in its lifecycle, from embryonic to declining, the evaluation strategy not only has to look at different factors in the different stages but also adapt to what’s unique about a cluster. There are no generic models or standard solutions that can guarantee success. The perfect cluster model is unique for each cluster.

VINNOVA realized the need to pinpoint exactly what the needs and problems are in their programming and continuously keep focus on the evolving nature of them. Being successful in a context where there is a social dimension requires continuous innovation based on what really happens. Success is deliberate change and impact is the result of a careful design. Focus on activities very often will make you see what you want to see. If you focus on what you would like to accomplish you will soon see that activities are simply “tests” that will give you insight on what works and what doesn’t work on your road to success. This is the paradigm shift that we hope to bring to the attention of the conference delegates. It’s about leaving the traditional role as an administrator of a cluster or a program behind you in order to become an impact designer.

If you won't be able to come to the conference, follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OpenEyeGroup

In Sweden, when government agencies kick off domestic development initiatives, we've become accustomed to a common routine: program guidelines are released, criteria for partnerships are set, desired outcomes are described, and an amount of special funds are allocated for the work.

Recently, the Swedish Consumer Agency, Konsumentverket, issued guidelines for an upcoming round of the societal development programs called Regional Service Programs (RSP). This particular RSP, subtitled “Service as Growth Factor in Countryside and Sparsely Populated Areas,” is an effort to increase access to commercial and public services for citizens, focusing on fuel, everyday commodities and increased access for persons with disabilities.

There's something notable in the new guidelines: there are no funds allocated for the programs. Program partnerships are expected to be developed and implemented and supported /within/ existing regular budgets. At first this sounds like a true challenge. How can new programs mandated by the government succeed without new funding? But in thinking about this one step further, a very interesting question that arises: Do we need funds attached to new programs or are we better off without them?

For instance, additional funds usually leads to added activities as a second layer on top of regular business. If the intention of the new program is to enhance performance of regular activities, perhaps more funding is not such a great idea. Besides, who said that better and more efficient work would cost more money?

I suppose the worst case scenario is that with no money, service programs have their hands tied behind their back because an unfunded mandate makes people unable to carry out the program activities that are needed. It is going to be very interesting to see how this develops. We're collaborating now with the RSP in Dalarna region. Their hope is to be able to demonstrate that they can create compelling early outcomes absent funding using existing resources and partnerships, acting on levers that are theorized to be effective but cost little.

I'm curious to know if any of you have had successful experiences making unfunded mandates work. My take on this is that we may have an opportunity for people to focus on improving society without the need for outside funding. Thoughts?