I’d rank this article amongst top 10% of the +20 Theories of Change that I’ve co-developed/evaluated as an impact consultant.
Key Strengths: -coherent change logic [output-->outcomes (short/med)-->impact] -depth of thought on: *assumptions (with evidence, cited literature, reasoning transparency) *anticipated failure modes (including mitigation strategies and risk level) *key uncertainties (on program, organisational, and field level)
Potential Considerations: -Think about breaking down ERA’s theory of change by stakeholder group, to expand your impact net. Stakeholder group examples: (Fellows) (Mentors) (ERA Staff) (Partners: Uni of Cambridge? Volunteers?). And then ask what are potential outcomes of ERA’s activities for each group over time. The current ToC seems to focus mainly on Fellow-related outcomes. What about other groups? Although many Fellow-related outcomes may apply to other stakeholder groups, there may be other outcomes particular to a stakeholder group that is not yet fully understood/measured/improved upon. Speculative examples: Outcomes (ERA Staff) -->. Build program management and operations expertise -->. Create sustainable/effective talent development models for AIS field (Mentors) -->. Develop teaching and mentorship skills -->. Gain recognition as field leaders (Uni of Cam). --> Access talent pipeline for future researchers/students . -->. Strengthen position as leader in emergin field
-Think about ‘mechanisms’ of change, which seeks to identify what about your activities ‘cause’ your intended outcomes? In other words, what about your outcomes would not occur if activities did not have qualities a, b ,c, etc. A fellowship doesn’t just automatically lead to intended outcomes, right? So what about the location, timing, duration, content, messaging, format, application process, mentor matching process, alumni relations process, etc etc etc makes it more likely to produce intended outcomes? I’ve observed that organisations are better positioned to start thinking more intentionally about mechanisms once they’ve already developed a robust ToC and have some outcome evidence to support existing assumptions - which I think is where ERA are.
-For the benefit of the winder community (e.g. new fellowships in the making), it could be helpful to see your impact evaluation framework (bits and parts of which can already be assumed from your above blog), maybe even sharing specific indicators and tools used to gather evidence across outcomes.
-Your ‘Key Uncertainties’ section proposes such critical questions! I don’t see comments from the wider community. I’m unsure if you’ve received individual emails/anonymous feedback. Perhaps a shared document would spark collaboration, and offer the community a live glimpse at how you (or others) are attempting to answer these questions?
I’d rank this article amongst top 10% of the +20 Theories of Change that I’ve co-developed/evaluated as an impact consultant.
Key Strengths:
-coherent change logic [output-->outcomes (short/med)-->impact]
-depth of thought on:
*assumptions (with evidence, cited literature, reasoning transparency)
*anticipated failure modes (including mitigation strategies and risk level)
*key uncertainties (on program, organisational, and field level)
Potential Considerations:
-Think about breaking down ERA’s theory of change by stakeholder group, to expand your impact net. Stakeholder group examples: (Fellows) (Mentors) (ERA Staff) (Partners: Uni of Cambridge? Volunteers?). And then ask what are potential outcomes of ERA’s activities for each group over time. The current ToC seems to focus mainly on Fellow-related outcomes. What about other groups? Although many Fellow-related outcomes may apply to other stakeholder groups, there may be other outcomes particular to a stakeholder group that is not yet fully understood/measured/improved upon. Speculative examples:
Outcomes
(ERA Staff) -->. Build program management and operations expertise
-->. Create sustainable/effective talent development models for AIS field
(Mentors) -->. Develop teaching and mentorship skills
-->. Gain recognition as field leaders
(Uni of Cam). --> Access talent pipeline for future researchers/students
. -->. Strengthen position as leader in emergin field
-Think about ‘mechanisms’ of change, which seeks to identify what about your activities ‘cause’ your intended outcomes? In other words, what about your outcomes would not occur if activities did not have qualities a, b ,c, etc. A fellowship doesn’t just automatically lead to intended outcomes, right? So what about the location, timing, duration, content, messaging, format, application process, mentor matching process, alumni relations process, etc etc etc makes it more likely to produce intended outcomes? I’ve observed that organisations are better positioned to start thinking more intentionally about mechanisms once they’ve already developed a robust ToC and have some outcome evidence to support existing assumptions - which I think is where ERA are.
-For the benefit of the winder community (e.g. new fellowships in the making), it could be helpful to see your impact evaluation framework (bits and parts of which can already be assumed from your above blog), maybe even sharing specific indicators and tools used to gather evidence across outcomes.
-Your ‘Key Uncertainties’ section proposes such critical questions! I don’t see comments from the wider community. I’m unsure if you’ve received individual emails/anonymous feedback. Perhaps a shared document would spark collaboration, and offer the community a live glimpse at how you (or others) are attempting to answer these questions?