Outcome harvesting: when and how to use it

What is outcome harvesting?

Outcome harvesting is a method for finding out what has changed because of a project and how the project contributed. BetterEvaluation describes it as collecting evidence of what has changed, called outcomes, and then working backwards to decide whether and how the intervention contributed.

The method was developed by Ricardo Wilson-Grau and colleagues. It can be used for monitoring or for evaluation. Its key feature is how it defines an outcome: a change in the behaviour, relationships, actions, activities, policies or practices of a person, group, community, organisation or institution. Outcomes can be positive or negative, planned or unplanned, but the link between the project and the outcome must be verifiable.

When should you use it?

Outcome harvesting fits well when:

• you work on advocacy, networking, coalition building or capacity development, where results are hard to predict;
• the project has changed its plans along the way and the logframe no longer describes what really happened;
• you want to capture unplanned results, including negative ones;
• you need to understand your contribution to changes that many actors influence.

It fits less well when you need to measure a simple, planned output, such as the number of people trained. A normal indicator is better for that. It also takes time and skill, so do not use it for a quick check. If you want stories from participants rather than a structured outcome analysis, see the Most Significant Change technique.

What does an outcome look like?

An example, for a local NGO that trains women's group leaders on how to raise local issues: a township committee began to invite two women's group representatives to its monthly planning meetings. This is a change in a social actor's behaviour and relationships. The harvester then asks how the training and follow-up contributed, and who else played a part.

A full outcome description answers four basic questions, according to BetterEvaluation: who changed, what the observable change was, when and where it took place, and how the project and change agents contributed. It may also say why the outcome matters.

What are the six steps?

The six steps are described by the method's authors on BetterEvaluation and in a short guide. They are iterative, which means you may revisit earlier steps as you learn.

1. Design the harvest. Identify who will use the findings and for what. Write useful, actionable harvesting questions, for example "What has been the collective effect of our partners on local planning, and what does it mean for our strategy?" Agree what information to collect and from whom.
2. Review documents and draft outcome descriptions. Read reports, past evaluations and other documents to find possible outcomes and what the project did to contribute. Treat these as preliminary.
3. Engage with informants. Talk to change agents, partners and others who know about the changes. Ask open questions rather than only confirming outcomes that are already in the documents. This reduces bias. Finalise descriptions that are supported by evidence.
4. Substantiate. Choose some outcomes and ask independent people who know about them to check the facts and your contribution. Bigger claims need stronger evidence.
5. Analyse and interpret. Group the outcomes, often by the questions you set, your objectives or your strategies. For a large harvest, use a database. Then answer the harvesting questions using the evidence.
6. Support use of findings. Suggest points for discussion with the users, and help them decide what to do with the findings.

How can a small NGO do it?

• Keep the scope small. Pick one programme, one year and two or three harvesting questions.
• Use what you have. Start with progress reports, meeting notes and partner updates to draft outcomes. Many outcomes will already be there.
• Use a simple table. One row per outcome, with columns for the change, date, place, contribution, significance and sources.
• Share the work. Ask project staff to write draft outcomes from their area and review them as a team.
• Verify a sample. You do not need to verify every outcome. Choose a sample, favour the most important claims, and use independent sources such as a partner or a local official.
• Be honest about contribution. Say what you did, what others did and what you cannot know.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Counting activities as outcomes. "We held 12 meetings" is an output. The outcome is what other people did differently afterwards.
• Claiming sole credit. Most social change has many causes. Show your plausible contribution.
• Only looking for good news. Record negative or unplanned outcomes too.
• Skipping verification. Without independent checks, the findings look like self-reporting.
• No users. If nobody needs the answers, the harvest is wasted effort.

Outcome harvesting complements other MEAL tools. Use it with a theory of change to check how your assumptions held up.

How EMPO can help

EMPO is a trusted training and consultancy provider based in Yangon and one of Myanmar's leading names in practical NGO training, with 1,200+ people trained and 15 partner organisations. We offer MEAL training and intensive support, in English and Burmese, online and in person across Myanmar. See our services or contact us to explore methods for your programme.

Sources

• Outcome harvesting — BetterEvaluation, Wilson-Grau, Britt and others