What can outcomes theory as applied to individual and organizational settings be used for?
Outcomes theory can be used to improve outcomes system and performance management systems in the following ways:
- Specific examples of outcomes systems can be analyzed and categorized on the basis of their logical structure. Different outcomes systems sometimes use different terminology (e.g. the way they define outcomes, impacts, activities, processes, outputs, strategies, and indicators). It is difficult to compare systems in those instances where the same term is being used in different systems with different meanings (or the converse). Outcomes theory provides a common language in which to specify the basic characteristics of outcomes system elements which are described by terms within different outcomes systems.
- To clarify the difference between normative and technical purposes in defining terms used in outcomes systems. Sometimes outcomes system terms are defined in specific ways in order to promote particular agendas. For instance, the term outcome itself is defined in certain ways in some system (e.g. as, amongst other things, not being an output) for the normative purpose of encouraging program staff to focus more on outcomes rather than just on outputs. This normative use of terms, while it is useful for pragmatic purposes, can cause problems when attempting technical analysis of outcomes systems. Outcomes theory clarifies this issue.
- To identify the pros and cons of logically distinct outcomes systems. Identifying the pros and cons of different outcomes systems allows stakeholders to clearly understand (and equally importantly, clearly communicate) the practical consequences of having to work under particular outcome systems designed in particular ways; it allows stakeholders to develop compensatory manoeuvres for those systems which contain major design flaws; it promotes clearer discussion between stakeholders and system designers about the pros and cons of different systems; and it encourages conscious, rather than the currently often unconscious, decision making by system designers about the trade-offs they are making when designing particular outcome systems.
- To promote more sophisticated thinking about outcomes systems architecture. Multiple outcomes systems are sometimes laid across an organization or a sector with little analysis of how the different systems relate to each other. Developing a generic analytical language will assist in understanding how such systems are conceptually linked to each other and how they can best be integrated into larger outcomes/performance management architectures.
- The building of better outcomes systems in the future which are optimised and have the minimal unintended negative consequences. A number of current outcomes systems have significant unintended negative consequences, such as discouraging intervention organizations from focusing on outcomes which are not solely attributable to their activity. One reason for this is the lack of an analytical language with which to understand and optimise such systems.
V1-0.