Two approaches for combining theories of change and system maps
In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the limitations of traditional theories of change and how systems mapping can help you overcome those weaknesses. Today we dive into two different approaches for creating diagrams that combine theories of change with system maps.
Approach #1: Integrating your theory of change into an existing system map
With this approach, a system map is first developed in order to reach a deeper understanding of a situation an organization or program seeks to change. Participants then analyze the map, drawing conclusions on potential leverage points where interventions could bring about the desired changes. These interventions are then made visible on the system map, either by annotating existing elements and connections or by adding new elements or connections to the map.
This exercise is not unlike the process of converting a Problem Tree into an Objectives Tree. However, rather than simply converting negative phrases into positive ones, you’re looking to identify leverage points in the system where you can achieve the most impact with a limited number of focused interventions.
A major advantage of this approach is that the context analysis and theory of change are unified in a single diagram. Traditional theory of change diagrams usually depict only the actions that a particular organization or program plans to implement, together with the related changes they anticipate through the implementation of those actions. They usually leave out elements of the broader context which can lead to what Craig Valters flags as a recurrent problem with theories of change:
“Organizations imply that change in a society revolves around them and their program, rather than around a range of interrelated contextual factors, of which their program is part.”
Starting with a system map and integrating your theory of change can be an effective way to address this issue, at least in part.
It’s important to remember that system maps are most valuable when used as tools to bring together diverse strands of knowledge gained from a broader context analysis — during which a variety of tools, methods and exercises are used. System maps are far less effective when used as the sole tool for a situational analysis or as a replacement for (rather than complement to) other approaches and methods.
When using this approach you’ll want to watch out for what we call “proof by intimidation”. This is the tendency for maps to become quite large and complex, making it difficult for those who weren’t involved in the original process to follow along (and thus often going along to get along). Building an effective map of the broader context requires a lot of discretion about what should make its way onto the map.
Example: Linking farmers to markets to feed the city
SERJUS, a civil society strengthening NGO based in Guatemala, partnered with Oxfam in order to implement a project called Linking farmers to markets to feed the city, a four-year initiative aimed at strengthening agricultural markets for smallholder producers in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. One of the proposed outcomes of this project was for local partner organizations (representing smallholder producers) to develop and implement political influencing strategies aimed at strengthening public investment in agriculture (for specific areas of need prioritized by the producer organizations).
Colectivo Orgánico Regional (COR — a local partner organization) developed a regional strategy as part of this initiative that sought to improve the services provided by the Ministry of Agriculture to support agroecological production by smallholders. During the planning stage, COR created a systems map that synthesized insights from a series of workshops and other research.
Initially, COR never planned to integrate a theory of change into their system map. But as discussions using the map deepened, ideas started flowing about how COR could intervene to bring about the desired changes. What emerged was a proposal for a shorter-term advocacy project (to establish a regional office of the Ministry’s Department for Organic Agriculture for the Western Highlands) and also a longer-term theory of change for progressively enhancing the quality of services provided by the Ministry to smallholder farmers engaged in agroecology.
The complete system map is reproduced below. As you can see, it is quite complex and could certainly be accused of falling into the “proof by intimidation” trap. Fortunately, Kumu has useful features to make large system maps like these more intelligible (including interactive presentations which you can see for this map here).
A disclaimer: The above system map was originally developed in a workshop as part of a participatory planning process with various members of COR. During the process of moving this map to Kumu some changes and additions were integrated into the map in order to explain certain aspects of the diagram and to take advantage of some of Kumu’s unique capabilities. These changes represent my own analysis and do not necessarily represent the views of the aforementioned organizations.
Example: Humanity United’s Supply Chains and Forced Labor Portfolio
Another example of this kind of approach to building a ToC using a system map comes from Humanity United, who described in a recent report how they used a systems practice to develop a new three-year strategy for their Supply Chains and Forced Labor portfolio in order to leverage momentum around the opportunities they uncovered through their system map. Click here to view the performance report and see how they’ve combined their theory of change and systems map.
Developing and implementing a practice of “systems thinking” has provided us an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the environments we seek to change and strengthen our capacity to create enduring impact.
Approach #2: Building a system map to explain your theory of change
An alternative approach for using systems mapping to improve your theory of change comes from David Peter Stroh in Systems Thinking for Social Change (highly recommended for those that want to delve deeper into some of the ideas covered in this post). This approach creates a system map that is closer to a traditional ToC diagram in that it only portrays the proposed intervention of the organization or program (together with the anticipated outcomes of this intervention) rather than also depicting the wider system in which this intervention will be implemented. This leads to simpler, less cluttered diagrams that can be easier for others to understand.
A key advantage of this approach is that it is easier for an organization to build their ToC around the systemic theory of change models that are proposed by Stroh in his book. These models use two core components of system maps (reinforcing loops and balancing loops) to depict the kinds of change processes described in Part 1 of this series, while also proposing other components in order to ensure long-term effectiveness and sustainability. One of the things I like most about Stroh’s models is that they include strategies to overcome the common problems or traps that often affect projects, programs and organizations. This encourages planners and managers to anticipate these issues and design strategies to overcome them (which can then be incorporated into their theory of change).
The first of these Stroh calls The Success Amplification Theory, which is centered on a reinforcing loop that drives continued improvements to a situation. However, drawing upon the insights gained from the Limits to Growth archetype (which stipulates that growth processes are quick to reach limits that prevent further growth), Stroh proposes that ToCs using reinforcing loops should also anticipate these limits and plan for long-term investments in order to overcome them, thereby creating “new engines of growth over time.”
The second systemic model proposed by Stroh is called the Goal Achievement Theory. This model uses a balancing loop to depict a change process that corrects an unwanted situation with a few other additions. The first is an additional loop (B2) that recognises that systemic interventions focusing on the root causes of a problem tend to take time to show results and therefore require persistence when interventions fail to show results in the short-run. Secondly, in order to avoid the Addiction archetype (continuing to implement the wrong actions even in the face of evidence that they are not working), Stroh’s ToC recognises the need to gain new perspectives on the underlying structure of the problem and to rethink and adapt the strategy if progress is still not being made even after taking time delays into account (B3).
Stroh also proposes integrating a series of reinforcing loops into the Goal Achievement Theory of Change in order to specify how changes will be sustained and reinforced over time. The R4 Loop is essentially the opposite of the Drifting Goals archetype and encourages “people to expand their aspirations as their actual performance increases.” When these goals are raised, new opportunities can be identified for achieving them and these opportunities can be achieved by developing and implementing new growth strategies (R5). Finally, progress made toward addressing a problem’s root causes can, with time, result in a reduction of the need to implement short-term activities focused solely on addressing the problem’s symptoms. The savings an organization obtains from these changes can then be reinvested into its growth strategies (R6). For this loop, Stroh uses the example of a homeless charity in Massachusetts that was able to make significant annual savings by choosing to keep homeless people in long-term housing, rather than temporary shelters and emergency rooms. These savings could then be reinvested in programs aimed at preventing homelessness.
Stroh’s systemic models do not have to be used in isolation. Using these models as inspiration, a single diagram can integrate and adapt multiple elements of Stroh’s models as required by the needs of the intervention.
Examples
David’s book has plenty of illustrative examples about how NGOs and public sector organizations have put these ideas into practice in order to develop their own systemic theories of change. I’ve reproduced one of these case studies in Kumu to provide a quick illustration of how these models can be applied in practice. If you’re interested in learning more about David’s approach to theories of change or exploring more examples, I highly encourage you to read his book.
So…which is the “right” approach?
There’s no one right approach when it comes to combining theories of change with system maps. While approach #1 leans more toward analyzing the complexity “out there” (what is happening in the broader context to make the status quo so hard to change?), approach #2 focuses more on the complexity “in here” (how are we contributing to the very problems we’re trying to solve?). Both are important aims and I’d argue both are essential in order for you achieve lasting impact.
Interested in applying one of these approaches using Kumu?
The third and final part of this series explores the many features Kumu offers to help build more effective theories of change. Don’t miss it!
