Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Logic Model Analysis× | Outcome Mapping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Public Policy | Public Policy |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2004 | 2001 |
| Originator≠ | Program evaluation field; popularised by United Way and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation | Sarah Earl, Fred Carden & Terry Smutylo (IDRC) |
| Type≠ | Visual planning and evaluation framework | Actor-centred planning, monitoring and evaluation approach |
| Seminal source≠ | W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. link ↗ | Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC). ISBN: 9780889369597 |
| Aliases≠ | Logic Model, Logical Framework Analysis, Program Logic, Logframe Analysis | OM, IDRC Outcome Mapping, Behavioural Change Mapping |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | A logic model is a systematic, visual representation of how a program is understood to work: it lays out the logical relationships among the resources invested (inputs), the things done (activities), the products of those activities (outputs), and the changes expected to follow (outcomes and impact). Logic model analysis is the practice of building, examining and using these models to plan programs, guide implementation, and structure evaluation. Popularised by the United Way and codified in the W.K. Kellogg Foundation's widely used 2004 Logic Model Development Guide, it has become the workhorse framework of program planning and evaluation. | Outcome Mapping is a planning, monitoring and evaluation methodology developed by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and set out by Sarah Earl, Fred Carden and Terry Smutylo in 2001. It redefines results as changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities and actions of the people and organisations a program works with directly — its 'boundary partners' — rather than as downstream development impacts. By focusing on the behavioural changes a program can plausibly influence, Outcome Mapping addresses the attribution problem head-on and shifts evaluation toward learning and contribution. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|