Theory of Change Models provide a visual snapshot to summarise of your approach and impact your project or organisation is trying to achieve. This creates a great tool to use in marketing and communications, as it sums up your project or organisation on one A4 page.
We have recently helped some of our clients map out social impact frameworks for a project or their organisation – check out some examples below. As you can see the format of the diagram changes depending on the intervention, range of stakeholders and and associated outcomes.
About UsWe provide management solutions to help organisations improve their efficiency, sustainability and socio-economic impact.
We help clients to develop their service offer, streamline business processes and evaluate the customer experience to ultimately maximise their impact. Scarcity is more than an economic idea of there being limited resources to meet everyone’s every need. They illustrate the scarcity and tunneling problems through reference to several studies in both the laboratory and in the field of how poverty is a major contributor to reducing bandwidth. Scarcity, and the cognitive load it puts on people who dwell on immediate concerns to the detriment of other issues, literally makes us dumber and more impulsive. A related paper by Datta and Mullainathan (2012) also discusses ideas of scarcity in a policy development context. Scarcity of cognitive capacity - Cognitive resources available to people at any moment are limited and can be depleted by their being used for other activities. Scarcity of self-control - Think of our self-control as a psychic “commodity” of which we have a limited stock, so that using up some for one task (continuing to exercise when you really want to stop) depletes the amount available for other tasks (resisting the dessert at dinner after your workout).
Scarcity of attention - Think of attention as another precious commodity – people do not have unlimited attention and might not pay attention to the ‘right’ things – they are busy paying attention to others. Scarcity of understanding – People’s mental models of how the world works may be incomplete; not all underlying causal relationships are correctly or accurately understood. Behaviour is generally easier to change when habits are already disrupted, such as around major life events. That was the challenge given me by the Society of Nutrition Education and Behavior for a webinar I did this week. I start with Duncan Watts, a physicist and sociologist, who presents two problems that bedevil people faced with the challenges of large and complex puzzles.
The second problem Watts (2011) discusses is the micro-macro problem: one that goes at the heart of the social marketing dilemma. To bring this problem back into the social marketing world, believing that social change will happen “one person at a time” does not conform to what we know about emergence in many other disciplines. These words sum up how important it is for us to have ways to explain facts and make sense out of them. All social change efforts involve different actors known by various labels such as audiences, influencers, stakeholders, consumers, suppliers, partners and policymakers.
Everyone has assumptions and explanations for how and why people think and behave the way they do; these are often referred to as naive theory or folk psychology. Many social change agents are familiar with the challenges of addressing other people’s cultural beliefs as they relate to health and social behaviors. This is why many social marketers stress the need to base programs to improve health, social welfare and the environment on empirically-validated models and theories. Many social marketing programs, and most public health ones, have shied away from working with their customers or members of their priority groups. We would view the launch of our smoking cessation effort as the continuation of a conversation with them. Is it time for more of us to loosen our grip on the 4Ps of the marketing mix as a necessary ingredient or benchmark for social marketing programs? The internal orientation of the marketing mix in which the four elements are controlled by the producer of goods, services and behavioral offerings and has little involvement or interaction with customers. The rise in services as primary drivers of economic activity that have their own unique character not addressed by the traditional 4Ps - for example, People or Participants, Physical Evidence (of their value), Processes (of service delivery), the intangible nature of their offering and demonstrated value to customers, as well as unique legal and professional restrictions on providers of many services (licensure of health providers, lawyers and general building contractors being just a few examples).
Most of these debates have been on theoretical grounds rather than based on empirical studies; it is also true that most marketers continue to practice as they were taught in college marketing classes (Constantinides, 2006). What S-D Logic shows us is that a tangible (product) or intangible offering (service, behavior) has value only when a customer ‘uses’ it.
The premises of S-D Logic (see below) guide us away from trying to create what we believe will be of value to people to a customer perspective that reminds us that it is how people utilize our offerings and experience rewards or value for adopting behaviors that should be our critical concern. Many of the biggest policy challenges we are now facing – such as the increase in people with chronic health conditions – will only be resolved if we are successful in persuading people to change their behaviour, their lifestyles or their existing habits.
That statement appears in the Foreword of a new joint publication by the Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. The contrasting model of shaping behaviour focuses on the more automatic processes of judgment and influence. So MINDSPACE becomes a methodology for, as they put it, changing behavior without changing minds.
The differences in the social marketing approach became even more pronounced in the international community where social marketing became synonymous with the marketing of products for family planning, HIV prevention and malaria control while various other groups organized themselves around concepts such as behavior change communication, health communication, development communication and community mobilization to name a few.
A hybrid approach developed independently in North America to reunite community with social marketing was coined as community-based social marketing (CBSM; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). In this section, the term logic model is used as a generic label for the many ways of displaying how change unfolds. Each mapping or modeling technique uses a slightly different approach, but they all rest on a foundation of logic - specifically, the logic of how change happens. There is, however, another meaning that lies closer to heart of community change: the logic of how things work. Logic in this sense refers to "the relationship between elements and between an element and the whole." All of us have a great capacity to see patterns in complex phenomena. The challenge for a logic modeler is to find and accurately represent the wisdom of those who know best how community change happens.
Like a road map, a logic model shows the route traveled (or steps taken) to reach a certain destination. The form that a logic model takes is flexible and does not have to be linear (unless your program's logic is itself linear).
Whatever form you choose, a logic model ought to provide direction and clarity by presenting the big picture of change along with certain important details. Putting these elements together graphically gives the following basic structure for a logic model. Using this generic model as a template, let's fill in the details with another example of a logic model, one that describes a community health effort to prevent tuberculosis.
Remember, although this example uses boxes and arrows, you and your partners in change can use any format or imagery that communicates more effectively with your stakeholders.
The linear model better guided discussions of cause and effect and how far down the chain of effects a particular program was successful.
When exploring the results of an intervention, remember that there can be long delays between actions and their effects. One of the greatest rewards for the extra effort is the ability to spot potential problems and redesign an initiative (and its logic model) before the unintended effects get out of hand, so that the model truly depicts activities that will plausibly produce the intended effects. Even though it leaves out information, a good model represents those aspects of an initiative that, in the view of your stakeholders, are most important for understanding how the effort works.
Should the information become overly complex, it is possible to create a family of related models, or nested models, each capturing a different level of detail.
Imagine "zooming-in" on the inner workings of a specific component and creating another, more detailed model just for that part.
In the Examples section, the idea of nested models is illustrated in the Tobacco Control family of models. The Comprehensive Cancer model illustrates a generic logic model accompanied by a zoom-in on the activities to give program staff the specific details they need.
Planners, program managers, trainers, evaluators, advocates and other stakeholders can use a logic model in several ways throughout an initiative.
Remember that your logic model is a living document, one that tells the story of your efforts in the community. At first, you may not agree with the answers that certain stakeholders give for these questions. By now you have probably guessed that there is not a rigid step-by-step process for developing a logic model.
The HOME initiative, for instance, created different models to address the unique needs of their financial partners, program managers, and community educators. Here are the plot points common in most community change initiatives, presented with their "storytelling" names.
An advantage of the graphic model is that it can display both the sequence and the interactions of effects. Dramatic actions in the HOME initiative include offering educational sessions and forming business alliances, homeowner support groups, and a neighborhood organizing council. Stakeholders working on the HOME campaign understood that they were challenging a history of racial discrimination and economic injustice. Draft the logic model using both sides of your brain and all the talents of your stakeholders. Link components by drawing arrows or using other visual methods that communicate the order of activities and effects.
Make sure it passes the "laugh test." That is, be sure that the image you create isn't so complex that it provokes an immediate laugh from stakeholders. Use PowerPoint or other computer software to animate the model, building it step-by-step so that when you present it to people in an audience, they can follow the logic behind every connection.
Also, when things are changing rapidly, it's easy for collaborators to lose sight of their common goals.
As you improve, modify or realign your model, take stock of emerging activities and effects.
The more complete your model, the better your chances of reaching "the promised land" of the story. In the HOME model, for instance, low home ownership persists when there is a vicious cycle of discrimination, bad credit, and hopelessness preventing neighborhood-wide organizing and social change. You can discover forces of change in your situation using multiple assessment strategies, including forward logic and reverse logic as described above.
After you've mapped out the structure of a program strategy, there is still another crucial step to take before taking action: some kind of simulation. Simulation is one of the most practical ways to find out if a seemingly sensible plan will actually play out as you hope.
Though simulation is a powerful tool, it can be conducted in ways ranging from the simple to the sophisticated.
Simulation can be as straightforward as an unstructured role-playing game, in which you talk the model through to its logical conclusions. In a more structured simulation, you could develop a tabletop exercise in which you proceed step by step through a given scenario with pre-defined roles and responsibilities for the participants. Ultimately, you could create a computer-based mathematical simulation by using any number of available software tools. The key point to remember is that creating logical models and simulating how those models will behave involve two different sets of skills, both of which are essential for discovering which change strategies will be effective in your community. You can probably envision a variety of ways in which you might use the logic model you've developed or that logic modeling would benefit your work.
In a coalition or collaborative partnership, the logic model makes it clear which effects each partner creates and how all those effects converge to a common goal. First, no matter how logical your model seems, there is always a danger that it will not be correct. At the other extreme, it would be ridiculous and unproductive to map all the simultaneous forces of change that affect health and community development.
On a purely practical level, logic modeling can also be time consuming, requiring much energy in the beginning and continued attention throughout the life of an initiative. Indeed, logic models can be very difficult to create, but the process of creating them, as well as the product, will yield many benefits over the course of an initiative.
As a means to communicate a program visually, within your coalition or work group and to external audiences, a logic model provides a common language and reference point for everyone involved in the initiative.
You will probably revise the model periodically, and that is precisely one advantage to using a logic model.
The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of Change: A Practical Guide to Theory Development, from The Aspen Institute’s Roundtable on Community Change. The CDC Evaluation Working Group provides a linked section on logic models in its resources for project evaluation. Logic Model Magic Tutorial from the CDC - this tutorial will provide you with information and resources to assist you as you plan and develop a logic model to describe your program and help guide program evaluation. Tara Gregory on Using Storytelling to Help Organizations Develop Logic Models discusses techniques to facilitate creative discussion while still attending to the elements in a traditional logic model. Theory of Change: A Practical Tool for Action, Results and Learning, prepared by Organizational Research Services. Theories of Change and Logic Models: Telling Them Apart is a helpful PowerPoint presentation saved as a PDF. University of Wisconsin’s Program Development and Evaluation provides a comprehensive template for a logic model and elaborates on creating and developing logic models. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Adherence and non-adherence are behaviors, and adherence to medication regimens requires behavior change. For most people behavior change occurs gradually over time, with the person progressing from being uninterested, unaware, or unwilling to make a change (precontemplation), to considering a change (contemplation), to deciding and preparing to make a change (preparation). It is important to evaluate a person's readiness to change for any proposed intervention (Zimmerman et al., 2000). For example, if trying to get a person to quit smoking, it is essential to know where the person is in his or her readiness to stop. Anything that moves a person along the continuum toward making a positive change should be viewed as a success.
Two major factors that have been found to affect a person's readiness to change are "importance" and "self efficacy". The Readiness-to-Change Ruler is used to assess a person's willingness or readiness to change, determine where they are on the continuum between "not prepared to change" and "already changing", and promote identification and discussion of perceived barriers to change (See Readiness-to-Change in the Assessment Tools section). Copyright ? 2012 American Society on Aging and American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Foundation; all rights reserved. Having less than what we perceive we need – whether it is food, money, friends or time – is having less than we feel we need. It extends the insights from behavioral economics beyond the nudges and defaults we are now so familiar with to how we think and feel when we have too little; it changes our thoughts, choices and behaviors. Consider some unsuspecting shoppers in a mall who were asked to imagine a scenario in which they either had (a) a $300 estimate, or (b) a $3,000 estimate to repair their damaged car of which their insurance would pay half the cost. Think about that the next time you wonder why people who are poor do some of the things they do – to your utter exasperation. They talk more about the limited resources imposed by perceptions of scarcity and suggest some ideas about how to address each of them in program design. So increasing the cognitive demands of social change programs (cover more material, require more time spent in classes) may in fact be designing them to be less likely to succeed. Good points to be reminding ourselves of as we talk with people among our priority groups and set out to design programs that will help them solve their real problems. This is the reason I spend time talking about different theories and models of behavior change.
What dramatically illustrates the power of a theory, and its drawbacks, is to break the workshop (or class) into five smaller groups. We have a strong tendency to go with the default or pre-set option, since it is easy to do so. Making the message clear often results in a significant increase in response rates to communications. Financial incentives are often highly effective, but alternative incentive designs — such as lotteries — also work well and often cost less.
We are embedded in a network of social relationships, and those we come into contact with shape our actions. We often use commitment devices to voluntarily ‘lock ourselves’ into doing something in advance. We are more influenced by costs and benefits that take effect immediately than those delivered later. You might also note that none of these methods have direct counterparts to any of the variables in the theories I presented above.


Some of the countries outside the US that were there included Canada, Columbia, Czech Republic, Spain, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, Somalia, Turkey and Uganda. This theory has guided many marketers’ approach to discovering what the desired behavior might be, its possible determinants, the context in which it occurs - or not, and the consequences that people and society incur.
This dilemma emanates from our desire to achieve macro outcomes, ones that involve changes among large numbers of people, among population segments, or in society as a whole.
It is analogous to believing that consciousness can be explained by the action of a neuron or even many neurons; it may be convenient to think like this, but throughout his book, Watts (2011) takes on these logical fictions with data.
But even more so, the lyric reiminds us of why it so important to have facts to back up one's theory. Depending on the actor and the objective of the program, social marketers and change agents may be trying to increase some behaviors (healthy eating, physical activity, recycling), decrease others (tobacco use, risky sexual behaviors, energy use), encourage participation in social change activities (citizen engagement, social mobilization) or gain support for environmental change (adopt policies, redesign physical entities such as automobile safety features or entertainment content). Stories and case studies have a limited place in moving us closer to understanding and solutions.
Yet, agreeing on a common approach to thinking about and addressing wicked social and public health problems is a major point of contention when working with partners.
Our role is to facilitate value creation as they quit smoking: they must integrate what we (and perhaps others) are giving to them as an active creator of value, not a passive recipient of benefits (Gronroos, 2011). Rather, we should view exchanges as mutual sharing of knowledge and resources among the social marketing agency, the priority group or customers and other actors or stakeholders (co-creation of value-in-use). This shift requires marketers to understand customer constructions and evaluations of value, be more flexible in their approach, engage with customers over longer periods of time, and innovate and adapt to changing market conditions - especially those related to technology and communication. People bring skills and competencies to encounters they have with us, and thus are always a co-creators of value, not passive recipients of what we judge they need or want.
Fortunately, over the last decade, our understanding of influences on behaviour has increased significantly and this points the way to new approaches and new solutions.
This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act. It certainly provides something for us to think about when we try and use policy-making as a way of changing behaviors.
Lefebvre & Flora (1988) laid out the defining features of the social marketing approach based on experiences they shared directing community interventions for cardiovascular disease reduction. Responding to this fracturing of resources and talent, McKee (1991) wrote a book that he hoped would enhance the understanding of social mobilization, social marketing and community participation amongst communicators who sometimes set up unnecessary barriers between their various fields.
Some people may not be ready to attempt changes, while others may have already begun implementing changes in their smoking, diet, activity levels, and so on.
They energize and rally support for an initiative by declaring precisely what you're trying to accomplish and how. By whatever name you call it, a logic model supports the work of health promotion and community development by charting the course of community transformation as it evolves.
We see systems at work and find within them an inner logic, a set of rules or relationships that govern behavior. With an understanding of context and knowledge about cause and effect, we can construct logical theories of change, hypotheses about how things will unfold either on their own or under the influence of planned interventions.
It explains why the program ought to work, why it can succeed where other attempts have failed. Let's illustrate the typical components of a logic model, using as an example a mentoring program in a community where the high-school dropout rate is very high. The arrows between the boxes indicate that review and adjustment are an ongoing process - both in enacting the initiative and developing the model. The two formats helped communicate with different groups of stakeholders and made different points. The circular model more effectively depicted the interdependence of the components to produce the intended effects.
Also, certain system changes can trigger feedback loops, which further complicate and delay our ability to see all the effects.
Many planners like to use the following three categories of effects (illustrated in the models above), although you may choose to have more or fewer depending on your situation.
The main point is to clearly show connections between activities and effects over time, thus making explicit your initiative's assumptions about what kinds of change to expect and when.
While the starting point for logic modeling is to identify the effects that correspond to stated goals, your intended effect are not the only effects to watch for.
There is always a risk that our "cure" could be worse than the "disease" if we're not careful.
Although it captures the big picture, it is not an exact representation of everything that's going on.
In most cases, the developers will go through several drafts before producing at a version that the stakeholders agree accurately reflects their story. One model could sketch out the broad pathways of change, whereas others could elaborate on separate components, revealing detailed information about how the program operates on a deeper level. For a complex initiative, you may choose to develop an entire family of such related models that display how each part of the effort works, as well as how all the parts fit together. This closer view focuses on a specific component or set of components, yet it is still broad enough to describe the infrastructure, activities, and full sequence of effects. This view expands on a particular part of the sequence, such as the roles of different stakeholders, staff, or agencies in a coalition, and functions like a flow chart for someone's work plan. It includes a global model that encompasses three intermediate outcomes in tobacco control - environments without tobacco smoke, reduced smoking initiation among youth, and increased cessation among youth and adults. Notably, the intended effects on the zoom-in are identical to those on the global model and all major categories of activities are also apparent. One model may serve more than one purpose, or it may be necessary to create different versions tailored for different aims.
This approach explores the rationale for activities that are proposed or currently under way. It does this through a combination of educating community residents, organizing the neighborhood, and building relationships with partners such as businesses. Collect narrative descriptions, justifications, grant applications, or overview documents that explain the basic idea behind the intervention effort. Mortgage companies, grant makers, and other decision makers who decided whether to allocate resources for the effort found the global view from space most helpful for setting context.
For example, in the HOME model, credit counseling leads to better understanding of credit ratings, while loan assistance leads to more loan submissions, but the two together (plus other activities such as more new buyer programs) are needed for increased home ownership. At evaluation time, each of these actions is closely connected to output indicators that document whether the program is on track and how fast it is moving. And don't forget to include important feedback loops - after all, most actions provoke a reaction.
Having a well-developed logic model can keep stakeholders focused on achieving outcomes while remaining open to finding the best means for accomplishing the work.
In order to tell a complete story or present a complete picture in your model, make sure to consider all forces of change (root causes, trends, and system dynamics). When exploring forces of change, be sure to search for personal factors (knowledge, belief, skills) as well as environmental factors (barriers, opportunities, support, incentives) that keep the situation the same as well as ones that push for it to change.
As logical as the story you are telling seems to you, as a plan for intervention it runs the risk of failure if you haven't explored how things might turn out in the real world of feedback and resistance. Simulation is not the same as testing a model with stakeholders to see if it makes logical sense. As a detailed description of your initiative, from resources to results, the logic model is equally important for planning, implementing, and evaluating the project.
Planners often summarize an effort by listing its vision, mission, objectives, strategies and action plans. The family or nesting approach works well in a collaborative partnership because a model can be developed for each objective along a sequence of effects, thereby showing layers of contributions and points of intersection.
A comprehensive model will reveal where physical, financial, human, and other resources are needed. It is possible to design a documentation system that includes only beginning and end measurements.
Most initiatives are founded on assumptions about the behaviors and conditions that need to change, and how they are subject to intervention. The terms used in a model help to standardize the way people think and how they speak about community change. When you undertake the task of developing a logic model, be aware of the following challenges and limitations. The world sometimes works in surprising, counter-intuitive ways, which means we may not comprehend the logic of change until after the fact. In most cases, there is a tension between focusing on a specific program and situating that effort within its broader context. A modeler's challenge is to include enough depth so the organizational context is clear, without losing sight of the reasons for developing a logic model in the first place.
The process can demand a high degree of specificity; it risks oversimplifying complex relationships and relies on the skills of graphic artists to convey complex thought processes.
The process of developing the model brings together stakeholders to articulate the goals of the program and the values that support it, and to identify strategies and desired outcomes of the initiative. It helps stakeholders agree on short-term as well as long-term objectives during the planning process, outline activities and actors, and establish clear criteria for evaluation during the effort.
Working backwards, you begin with the desired outcomes and then identify the strategies and resources that will accomplish them. Because it relates program activities to their effect, it helps keep stakeholders focused on achieving outcomes, while it remains flexible and open to finding the best means to enact a unique story of change.
You will have opportunities to interact with the material, and you can proceed at your own pace, reviewing where you need to or skipping to sections of your choice. Centers for Disease Control Evaluation Group provides links to a variety of logic model resources.
Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide is a comprehensive source for background information, examples and templates (Adobe Acrobat format). Motivation is a key factor in successful behavior change and has been shown to promote adherence to chronic therapies (World Health Organization, 2003).
During the past decade, behavior change has come to be understood as a process of identifiable stages through which people pass (Zimmerman et al., 2000). This is followed by definitive action, and attempts to maintain the new behavior over time (maintenance). Anything that moves a person along the continuum towards making a positive change should be viewed as a success.
Interventions that are not staged to the readiness of the individual will be less likely to succeed. A person who is not even thinking about quitting smoking (precontemplation) is generally not ready to receive information about specific smoking cessation aids.
Employing stage-specific interventions will decrease provider frustration by lessening the unrealistic expectation that change will occur with a single intervention. The Readiness-to-Change Ruler can be used as a quick assessment of a person's present motivational state relative to changing a specific behavior, and can serve as the basis for motivation-based interventions to elicit behavior change, such as motivational interviewing. What makes scarcity an important idea for social marketers and other change agents is that it captures the mind; scarcity changes the way we think. While we recognize how scarcity can make us more attentive and efficient in managing immediate needs – think of the last deadline that was looming over you – it also reduces what the authors refer to as ‘bandwidth.’ They consider bandwidth as a short-hand for our cognitive capacity and executive control that are currently available for use.
Do they get the car fixed, or take the chance that it will continue to run a little longer?
Scarcity forces people to engage in trade-offs; having slack in money and time (disposable income and free time) makes decision-making (and life!) so much easier. The prescription: simplify choices people have to make and encourage rules-of-thumb (heuristics) for decision-making. In workshops that I facilitate, I use this slide to illustrate some of the main ideas from some usual, and not so typical, theories that I find are employed by many social change agents.
All of the groups are given the same behavior change challenge and asked to come up with one or more priority groups to focus on, what research questions they would want to ask of them to learn more about the problem, and what potential solutions can they quickly generate (brainstorm). In particular, it’s useful to identify how a complex goal can be broken down into simpler, easier actions.
Similarly, policy makers should be wary of inadvertently reinforcing a problematic behaviour by emphasising its high prevalence.
Governments can foster networks to enable collective action, provide mutual support, and encourage behaviours to spread peer-to-peer. Policy makers should consider whether the immediate costs or benefits can be adjusted (even slightly), given that they are so influential. A proven solution is to prompt people to identify the barriers to action, and develop a specific plan to address them. The ideas and tools are designed to stimulate innovative approaches to nutrition education. I offer that to fully develop the discipline of social marketing and its promise to be a positive force for social change, we must think about change as it occurs among groups of people (segments, social networks) and at different levels of society (organizations, communities, physical environments, markets, and public policies)…[Ed Note: See Transformative Social Marketing (pdf)]. Both of these problems highlight the need for social change programs to adopt theoretical perspectives that are broader than individual determinants. Yet these outcomes are driven by the micro actions of individuals (for example, it is individuals whose voting behavior determines the outcome of policy options, individuals’ behavior that sets the tone for an organizational culture, and individuals who connect through social network sites to organize and plan social action).
Changes in complex social systems involve interactions between people and systems, just as neurons must be connected and interact with each other in systematic ways to create what we refer to as consciousness. For social marketers, social innovators and people who are working with social and mobile technologies for health and social change, the song should become a chant.
Who is the focus of these activities, and what they are asked to do is largely a function of the framework (or theory of change) that we bring to the task. Because people often only have only one or two frameworks or theories they use for problem solving, these conversations quickly devolve into the city of Babel or attempts to convince the other side that our POV is the correct one. Constantinides (2006) summarized over 40 papers that have been critical of, or presented alternatives, to the 4Ps marketing mix framework. It moves us from being ‘customer-focused' not just in the beginning of a project when we conduct formative research, but throughout the process - especially when people discover or create the value of change for themselves. Are we, in fact, simply applying our old prejudices for rational decision-making and persuasion by implementing policies that mandate the delivery of more information (think about BMI report cards in schools, restaurant menu-labeling programs for example)?
Yet, even by the early 1990s, we can recall where social marketing and community development components of Health Canada could not find common ground for collaboration. The construct of “stage of change” is a key element of The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change, and proposes that people are at different stages of readiness to adopt healthful behaviors.
Effective logic models make an explicit, often visual, statement of the activities that will bring about change and the results you expect to see for the community and its people. It is also possible to use a network, concept map, or web to describe the relationships among more complex program components. This can also be expressed as the problems or opportunities that the program is addressing.
If you understand the basic elements of a logic model, any labels can be meaningful provided stakeholders agree to them. Try to define essential concepts at the design stage and then be consistent in your use of terms. Any intervention capable of changing problem behaviors or altering conditions in communities can also generate unintended effects. Part of the added value of logic modeling is that the process creates a forum for scrutinizing big leaps of faith, a way to searching for unintended effects. Individually, each model conveys only essential information, and together they provide a more complete overview of how the program or initiative functions. This view answers questions such s: Do the activities follow a single pathway, or are there separate pathways that converge down the line? This view answers the same questions as the view from outer space, but with respect to just the selected component(s). But the zoom in unpacks these activities into their detailed components and, more important, indicates that the activities achieve their effects by influencing intermediaries who then move gatekeepers to take action. Alternatively, if your program is already under way, a model can help you describe, modify or enhance it. The same people who will use the model - planners, program managers, trainers, evaluators, advocates and other stakeholders - can help create it.
On the other hand, while developing the model you might see new pathways that are worth exploring in real life. It starts with a clearly identified value, a change that you and your colleagues would definitely like to see occur, and asks a series of "But how?" questions: But how do we overcome fear and stigma?
If your venture involves a coalition of several organizations, be sure to get descriptions from each agency's point of view. As you iteratively refine the model, ask yourself and others if it captures the full story.


Does it contain big leaps of faith or does it show change through a logical sequence of effects? These outputs could be the number of educational sessions held, their average attendance, the size of the business alliance, etc.
If you need to take a detour or make a longer stop, the model serves as a framework for incorporating the change. Does your model reveal assumptions and hypotheses about the root causes and feedback loops that contribute to problems and their solutions? Building a model on one pathway to address only one force would limit the program's effectiveness. The point of a simulation is to see how things will change - how the system will behave - through time and under different conditions. Kellogg Foundation notes (see Internet Resources below), refining a logic model is an iterative or repeating process that allows participants to "make changes based on consensus-building and a logical process rather than on personalities, politics, or ideology.
When planners are discussing options and setting priorities, a logic model can help them make resource-related decisions in light of how the program's activities and outcomes will be affected. It gets everyone rowing in the same direction, and enhances communication with external audiences, such as the media or potential funders.
With this in mind, modelers will appreciate the fact that the real effects of intervention actions could differ from the intended effects. Many models seem to suggest that the only forces of change come from within the program in question, as if there is only one child in the sandbox.
When the initiative ends, it provides a framework for assessing overall effectiveness of the initiative, as well as the activities, resources, and external factors that played a role in the outcome. Combining this with forward logic, you will choose certain steps to produce the desired effects. This appendix presents techniques that will be useful in assessing motivation and helping older adults increase their intrinsic motivation to adhere to medication regimens and other chronic therapies. The Stages of Change model describes five stages of readiness (Figure 5) - precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance - and provides a framework for understanding behavior change (DiClemente and Prochaska, 1998). Once the person reaches the contemplation stage, additional strategies can be employed to help the person move along the stages of change.
Also, interventions that try to move a person too quickly through the stages of change are more likely to create resistance that will impede behavior change. In this case, focusing the intervention on smoking cessation aids sends the message that the health care provider is not really listening. Self efficacy is a person's belief or confidence in their ability to succeed at making the change. Scarcity causes us to ‘tunnel’ – to adopt a mindset that focuses only on what seems, at least at that moment, to matter most.
Simply put, when scarcity captures our mind it helps us focus on doing a better job with our most pressing needs; yet it also makes us less insightful, less forward-thinking and less controlled. They were given a test of cognitive ability, the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, before being given the scenario and then a few minutes after considering their response. The frame problem proposes that it is impossible to know all the potentially relevant facts and determinants of a puzzle, given the overwhelming number of possibilities and combinations of variables. This problem is embedded in definitions of social marketing as changing individual behaviors in order to achieve social good. Theories, whether based on common sense, past experience or empirical evidence, create frameworks for our work. And the use of the wrong theory to understand a problem and develop strategies to address it is one of the primary sources of program failures. That is, the notion that we conduct research to unearth the ‘benefit’ that will compel people to exchange with us is misguided; we cannot presume to be the final arbiters of ‘value’ – the user must create or find that value as they engage with the behavior, product or service we are offering. They may surprise us by noting that over time they are experiencing other benefits that are now more important to them. In this post, and the following one, I extend the S-D Logic to social marketing (and thank Bob Lusch for his review and comments on an earlier draft).
People will behave differently only if they find the new behavior (or discontinuing an old one) leads to self-defined value (benefits) when they engage in it (put it to use).
The presumption is that citizens and consumers will analyse the various pieces of information from politicians, governments and markets, the numerous incentives offered to us and act in their best interests (however they define their best interests, or - more paternalistically - however policymakers define them). Or are we focusing on changing the context in which judgments and decisions about health behaviors are made? As more practitioners appropriated social marketing as the basis for the development of ‘new’ health communication campaigns, the term became associated (and in some quarters still is) with mass media campaigns that segmented their audience, pretested materials and considered the 4Ps only in the context of communication planning, not marketing. The notion of readiness to change, or stage of change, has been examined in health behavior research and found useful in explaining and predicting changes for a variety of behaviors including smoking, physical activity, and eating habits. A logic model keeps participants in the effort moving in the same direction by providing a common language and point of reference. In the world of machines, the only language a computer understands is the logic of its programmer. And by working in teams, persistently over time if necessary, there is hardly any system past or present whose logic we can't decipher. Magical assumptions, poor reasoning, and fuzzy thinking increase the chances that despite our efforts, the future will turn out differently than we expect or hope. By defining the problem or opportunity and showing how intervention activities will respond to it, a logic model makes the program planners' assumptions explicit. Models can even be built around cultural symbols that describe transformation, such as the Native American medicine wheel, if the stakeholders feel it is appropriate. One cannot study the link between X and Y and, independently, the link between Y and X and predict how the system will behave.
The process of developing a logic model supports this important dialogue and will bring potential misunderstandings into the open. This level of detail is necessary for program staff, but it may be too much for discussions with funders and stakeholders. For practical reasons, though, you will probably start with a core group, and then take the working draft to others for continued refinement.
By making each stakeholder's thinking visible on paper, you can decide as a group whether the logic driving your initiative seems reasonable. For the HOME campaign, we collected documents from planners who proposed the idea, as well as mortgage companies, homeowner associations, and other neighborhood organizations.
Those resources may be financial, but they may also include people, space, information, technology, equipment, and other assets.
None of these facts are included in the model per se, but a shaded box labeled History and Context was added to serve as a visual reminder that these things are in the background.
By connecting activities and effects, a logic model helps avoid proposing activities with no intended effect, or anticipating effects with no supporting activities.
The clarity of thinking that occurs from the process of building the model becomes an important part of the overall success of the program." With a well-specified logic model, it is possible to note where the baton should be passed from one person or agency to another.
An alternative approach calls for tracking changes at each step along the planned sequence of effects. For example, some of the links in a logic model may have been tested and proved to be sound through previous research. Even stakeholders who are skeptical or antagonistic toward your work can be drawn into the discussion and development of a logic model. Certain actions might even make problems worse, so it's important to keep one eye on the plan and another focused on the real-life experiences of community members. This places a high burden on modelers to pay attention to detail and refine their own thinking to great degree. Most people will "recycle" through the stages of change several times before the change becomes fully established (Zimmerman et al., 2000). This may not only damage rapport but can also make the person even more resistant to quitting smoking. Depending on the health scenario, people may exhibit different levels of importance and self efficacy (Rollnick et al., 1999). The bad news is that the associated reduced bandwidth can lead to more scarcity as we continue to ‘tunnel,’ or neglect other, less immediate concerns that then becomes tomorrow’s, or next month’s or next year’s pressing need. Not so easy.] The point of EAST is that these are methods to apply after your learn about the people you intend to serve with your program and have selected the specific behavior you want to focus on with them - regardless of the theory you bring to the table.
Consequently, it is then difficult to selectively focus on only certain ones and ignore the others, to look for example at only psychological determinants or to consider only solutions that employ persuasive communications. Although the intentions are commendable, the actual process of moving from individual behavior change to changes at the societal level is ignored, as if this transition will occur automatically - that it is simply a matter of increasing the numbers of people practicing the behavior. Marketers who attempt to imbue their products or services with value, or benefits that consumers will find attractive, are reflecting ‘goods dominant’ logic.
Within the larger networks in which we operate, the S-D Logic also involves creating value propositions for stakeholders and partners.
Yet, how frequently, if ever, do we understand if our offerings actually result in value for people who use them (whether that value was what we proposed, or what the value is they 'created' or discovered when they used or practiced it themselves)? And should we also be asking how we can expand the frame for policy-making even more and focus on the marketplace itself to improve health behaviors by increasing access and opportunities to healthier behavioral options, products and services? Yet, through experience and awareness of recurrent patterns, we comprehend it, and, in many cases, can successfully avoid its problems (by carpooling, taking alternative routes, etc.).
On the other hand, some events that seem unexpected to the uninitiated will not be a surprise to long-time residents and careful observers. At various points on the map, you may need to stop and review your progress and make any necessary adjustments.
It is also common to hear people talk about effects that are "upstream" or "proximal" (near to the activities) versus "downstream" or "distal" (distant from the activities).
You can talk about it, clarify misinterpretations, ask for other opinions, check the assumptions, compare them with research findings, and in the end develop a solid system of program logic.
The important thing to remember is that these are not three different programs, but different ways of understanding how the same program works.
The HOME campaign runs because of the input from volunteer educators, support from schools and faith institutions in the neighborhood, discounts provided by lenders and local businesses, revenue from neighborhood revitalization, and increasing social capital among community residents. Although it is impossible to represent all of those factors in a model, you can strive to include features that remind users those conditions exist and will affect how change unfolds.
All programs evolve and change through time, if only to keep up with changing conditions in the community.
And for those who implement, the modeling answers practical questions about how the work will be organized and managed. The ability to spot such mismatches easily is perhaps the main reason why so many logic models use a flow chart format. With a logic model, program planners can identify intermediate effects and define measurable indicators for them. Other linkages, by contrast, may never have been researched, indeed may never have been tried or thought of before. Once you've got them talking about the logical connections between activities and effects, they're no longer criticizing from the sidelines.
These techniques and the concepts behind them are discussed primarily in the context of medication adherence, but they can also be applied to such lifestyle modifications as diet and exercise. A more stage-specific intervention with this person would be to try to get the person to think about quitting (contemplation). A person who is overweight may be convinced of the importance of losing weight but have a low level of confidence based on previous failure to lose weight or keep weight off. It is the tunneling phenomenon that is the central culprit for poor decision-making and behavior choices.
The authors’ explanation is simple, yet may provide the insight for many programs serving the poor: the $3,000 scenario got poorer people to consider their own money scarcity (“How could I come up with that?”) and this tunneling (or preoccupation) carried over to their performance on the Progressive Matrices in the post-test.
Unfortunately, as many of you have no doubt discovered, all of the health and social puzzles we tackle rarely conform to one theoretical model.
Frameworks, or heuristics, such as EAST and the 4Ps, help you make the shift from being a problem describer to a solution seeker.
What the frame problem poses to social marketers is that we cannot know for certain whether we have selected the right set of variables when we choose a theory, or frame, to guide us in thinking about our puzzle. As Watts (2011) notes, how micro behaviors become macro solutions is a puzzle in search of an explanation in many disciplines, and this puzzle cannot be simply dismissed or explained away as inconsequential. Rather, social marketing can be thought about as facilitating customer experiences or discoveries of value when using the product, trying the service or practicing the behavior. As with customers, the value for organizations to participate with us comes from their investment of information and resources to co-create value in the partnership (it is not something that is simply handed over, or exchanged, with them). Because the classic analysis of exchanges has focused on the immediate exchange of money for products, the value the product provides to a person (the customer) after the transaction is completed is ignored.
The alternative proposed by S-D Logic is to think about exchanges of knowledge and skills, not one-way offerings; that the people we serve become producers of value for us as well as for themselves (co-value producers). Because disciplines have their own jargon, stakeholders from two different fields might define the same word in different ways. This product then becomes a powerful tool for planning, implementation, orientation, evaluation, and advocacy, as described above.
Verbs such as teach, inform, support, or refer are often connected to descriptions of program activities.
The explicit form of a logic model means that you can combine evidence-based practices from prior research with innovative ideas that veteran practitioners believe will make a difference. They'll be engaged in problem-solving and they'll be doing so in an open forum, where everyone can see their resistance to change or lack of logic if that's the case. You'll have to decide on the basis of stakeholders' uses what level of precision is required. Once the person reaches the contemplation stages, additional strategies can be employed to continue to move the person through the stages of behavioral change. A person who is newly diagnosed with hypertension may be confident that they can take a pill to lower blood pressure but are not convinced of the importance of this action. A primary source of failure of interventions is the use of the wrong theory to understand and address the puzzle.Behavioral economics is one domain that has captured the interest of policy-makers and social marketers alike. In short, value is uniquely experienced by each customer when they use our offering – not in how persuasively or creatively we ‘sell it’ to them. Since the early years of social  marketing, many people have struggled with how to apply the logic of economic exchanges to social marketing ones - usually without much success. The value of an S-D Logic perspective for social marketers includes asking what do we learn from our customers, are we open to changing ourselves and offerings as a result of their input and response, and have we created opportunities for them to participate in a reciprocal process? Adjectives like reduced, improved, higher, or better are often used when describing expected effects.
Your activities, based on a clear analysis of risk and protective factors, are the answers to these kinds of questions, Your interventions reveal the drama in your story of directed social change.
If you are armed with a logic model, it won't be easy for critics to claim that your work is not evidence-based. A deficiency in either importance or self efficacy can lead to a person's unwillingness to commit to change. The authors note that these differences correspond to a drop in IQ of 14 points (a shift in an intelligence score of this magnitude can result in a person of average intelligence being reconsidered as ‘borderline deficient’ – just because of the bandwidth tax imposed by thinking about one’s tight financial situation). The point Watts is making is that many disciplines work with many different scales of reality and they are difficult to integrate.
The S-D Logic perspective encourages marketers to suggest what the value might be - value propositions (“we think you may like this because it…satisfies a need you are experiencing now, solves a problem for you, facilitates your getting a job done, or helps you reach a goal”) - that customers must then validate through their experience of using the offering (product, service or behavior) in their lives.
The same effect, they show in another study, holds true for farmers in India before harvest (when times are lean) and then after it (they have now been paid for their crops).
This perspective on how value is created by users means we must design interactions (or service touch points) to facilitate value-in-use and feedback. That same line of reasoning could also be uncovered using if-then statements: If we focus on briefing legislators, then they will better understand the issues affecting kids. This is not because they are less capable, but rather because part of their mind is captured by scarcity” (p.
Instead, biologists and other scientists invoke the idea of emergence to describe the shifting from one scale of reality to the next, and use ideas such as complexity, interactions, and systems to consider more than one scale at a time (an atomic scale versus a biochemical or physiological one).
In a classic social marketing approach, the first task would be to understand from the potential customers’ perspective, and there may be several segments of them with different perspectives, what benefits and barriers they perceive in quitting smoking. Then we would incorporate smokers into every facet of our discovery, design, creation and rollout of the program – not just invite them into focus groups and testing sessions. Finally, we would treat our value offering as a proposition and not be so sure we have actually ‘made value’ for a smoker who is trying to quit (see above for 4 possible approaches).



Changing last name on facebook after marriage
Secret files 3 walkthrough office


 

  1. 17.09.2014 at 10:23:54
    Gulesci_H writes:
    The community and assures academics about one's change theory models organizations personal internal life and success, we invite you to join.
  2. 17.09.2014 at 16:35:30
    KLan_A_PLan_Ka writes:
    Yoga therapy camp or change theory models organizations a retreat particularly focused on relieving despair and stress swamis/Saddhus as a result of the Northern Indian.