DoView

This case study is of how DoView can be used for a for 'shared outcomes cross-government' policy implementation. This project involves a number of different government departments working together on a range of different projects aimed at achieving shared outcomes. This is a very common scenario in many government and other settings around the world where a government introduces a program of work or a policy involving multiple players focused on shared outcomes to implement a particular policy. The project is being run by the New Zealand State Services Commission (SSC) - the central agency overseeing the administration of other government departments in New Zealand. (This case study represents work in progress and the examples used in this case study do not necessarily represent SSC or other departments' thinking at this point in time).

The focus of the project is on re-using data and information collected by government departments. This is generalized rather than individual level data. The idea is for businesses and communities to be able to re-use this information in ways that customers and communities find useful. 

Before DoView was introduced into the project, as one would expect, the main coordination tool being used for the project was a spread-sheet identifying each of the individual projects being implemented and a paragraph setting out the objectives for each project. This spreadsheet gave the impression of a coordinated project but the spreadsheet form of presentation did not really provide any accessible way of identifying whether there were important gaps or overlaps in the mix of projects being done. This is because the spreadsheet was 'program-centric' rather than 'outcomes-centric'. It started from a listing of the projects and worked backwards to identify objective statements. The alternative approach, promoted when using DoView, is to start with the desired outcomes and use them to them reflect on whether there are gaps and overlaps in the current mix of projects.

The DoView approach to shared outcome modeling was then introduced. The first thing that was done was to put aside the individual projects for a moment and a comprehensive DoView visual outcomes model was built. This contained all of the outcomes of the project and the steps which it is believed need to occur to achieve those outcomes. Once this had been done the projects were also entered into the DoView model (as a series of boxes on an additional page). Then the organizations were entered as boxes onto yet another DoView page. At this stage, the model was made up of a series of DoView sub-pages (compact 1 x 1 pages) optimized for viewing and working with when the model was dataprojected. 

Links were then drawn between each project and the intended steps or outcomes that project is focused on so that projects were 'mapped' onto steps and outcomes. The number of projects 'mapping' onto each step or outcome in the outcomes model was written in that step or outcome box. In the same way, the organizations involved in each project were then 'mapped' onto the projects. 

The power of using DoView for this analysis can be seen by looking at the model. The model clearly shows that the current set of projects are focused on work within the government departments in preparation for the implementation of the policy. See the number of projects (in brackets in each box) mapping onto steps and outcomes of the government department focused model. However, turning to the community model, it can be seen that at this stage in the implementation of the policy there are not yet many projects focused on getting it implemented in the community - this is to be expected at the point in the project when this model was drawn. However, DoView provides a powerful visual way of clarifying the current focus of the project and possibilities for future direction. This type of quick overview analysis was at all apparent when looking at the initial spreadsheet version of the project documentation. 

Lastly, DoView was used to produce versions of the DoView model to be used in meetings and circulated to stakeholders, in addition to the basic DoView electronic file. These included a letter (A4) sized version of the model; a tabloid (A3) version showing how the particular projects a particular department was undertaking map onto parts of the model; a  large poster (A1) sized model showing the overall model (if you look carefully at this particular model you will see how questions have been inserted onto the poster which are to be used in the course of a meeting to focus the meetings attention onto the key questions such as: 'Are there sufficient resources in departments to undertake this set of projects at this point in time?' and 'Should there be more focus on new projects focused on implementation in the community?'; a large poster (A1) sized model showing the links between projects and steps and outcomes and organizations and projects. The model was also printed out as a PDF version which listed all of the links between organizations, projects and steps and outcomes such that for each organization there was a list of the projects it was involved in and for each project there was a list of the steps and outcomes it was believed it would achieve and of the organizations involved in it, and for each step or outcome, a list of the projects which contribute to it.

This case study is of how outcomes modeling can be used when working with a relatively small community organization. The work which this case study reports on with the Mountain Safety Council was funded by the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs Lotteries Grants Board as a demonstration project in the way in which a relatively small community organization could use an outcomes modeling approach to evaluate its outcomes. This approach is based on the outcomes work of Dr Paul Duignan. One of the key aspect of this approach (Easy Outcomes) is that it integrates identifying an organization's outcomes, monitoring and evaluation into a framework which can at the same time be used for doing the organization's strategic planning. 

This is particularly important in the case of smaller community organizations and is really the only realistic way in which an outcomes-focused approach is likely to ever be successful with such small organizations. The reason for this is that such organizations are always stretched for resources. A new requirement, such as that which is being introduced by the Lotteries Grants Board for organizations receiving funding from it to be outcomes focused, can be very demanding on the organizations very limited resources. The approach used here provides a fully outcomes focused approach but it does it in a way that the organization can use the work which has been done to replace traditional work it has had to do, and so once the approach is set up it should not require additional resources to run. Such savings in time mean that small organizations are much more likely to adopt the approach. So the approach both potentially saves time and brings the organization into a tighter alignment with achieving its outcomes. 

The Mountain Safety Council is an organization made up of a national office and a volunteer network which undertakes training and other activities related to promoting safety in the outdoors. It receives Lotteries Grants Board funding for a number of its training and other activities. (The models shown in this case study are 'works in progress' and should not be taken to necessarily represent Mountain Safety Council thinking at this point in time).

The project was lead by Annie Dignan the Council's Research Officer and Dr Paul Duignan worked with the Council as on the project. The steps used in the process were first to build an outcomes model for the Mountain Safety Council. This model sets out the high-level outcomes the Council is attempting to achieve plus all of the important steps which it is believed are needed to achieve its outcomes. The outcomes model was build in a series of sessions with relevant Coucil Staff. The DoView version of the model was dataprojected onto a screen during all sessions when the model was built. In addition it was tidied up after the sessions by Annie Dignan and Dr Paul Duignan in telephone calls with Annie Dignan viewing DoView on Dr Paul Duignan's screen as he amended the model - this virtual DoView outcomes model drawing could be used by any organization and represents a saving in travel time and inconvenience. 

Once the outcomes model had been built, it was then taken to a strategic planning workshop for the Council's Executive. They went through the model and marked up those area in the model which they believe are key priorities for action (A, B, C, and marked BAU (Business as Usual) those areas where work needed to continue as normal. This is a very powerful and efficient way for an Executive Team to provide guidance on the strategic direction of an organization.

"In the Natural Resource Management (Conservation) sector in Australia, myself and colleagues are teaching organizations to use DoView as one way of drawing program logic models for their work. Increasingly, different levels of government in Australia investing in natural resource management, like governments throughout the world, are using program logics. The logics provide investors, such as government, greater confidence in their investments by enabling them to set out all of the steps that will lead to outcomes that are desired in a program. The logics can also be used to surface the key assumptions that underpin the programs and for identifying evidence that can be bought to bear on the topic in question. DoView provides one way of drawing and presenting such models. We have also been able to suggest some modifications to DoView which the DoView development team have subsequently built into later releases of DoView."

Rob Richards, Natural Resource Management Principal Consultant, Clear Horizon Austrailia. 

"We are using DoView to plan our health promotion work related to cancer. We used DoView to draw up a set of models of the steps and outcomes we are trying to achieve. We then mapped our projects and also the skills needed to implement them, onto the outcomes models we built. This meant that we could get an overview of the mix of projects we are currently involved in. It also helps us to think about our strategic direction. Mapping skills onto the outcomes models has made it easier for us to present the case for additional funding for particular types of skills which are needed as we progress our health promotion work."

Adrian Knowles, Manager Health Promotion, Cancer Society of New Zealand, Auckland Division