Degree of change in project norms or behaviors conducive to evidence-based decision making and action, as reported by target users

Indicator Number: 
64

Category: 

Logic Model Component: 

Data Type(s): 
Categorical scale, proportion, qualitative
Short Definition: 
Refers to the extent to which target users report a change in project or program norms and behaviors toward those conducive to evidence-based decision making and action
Definition and Explanation (Long): 
This indicator refers to the extent to which target users report a change in project or program norms and behaviors toward those conducive to reflection and evidence-based action as an outcome of the use of adaptive practices. This may include changes in beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of both the project, program, or initiative and the individuals themselves regarding the value and benefit of the adaptive management of project, programs, or initiatives.
Data Requirements: 
Quantitative data from surveys or questionnaires using Likert scales to determine degree of change in norms or behaviors, self and others; qualitative data from key information interviews and focus group discussions on specific norms and behaviors reported to have changed and why, and the implications of those changes
Data Sources: 
Surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, after-action reviews
Frequency of Data Collection: 
Annually
Purpose: 
The aim of this indicator is to measure the usefulness of the adaptive practices in changing the culture of the project, program, or initiative to one that values evidence-based decision making and action.
Issues and Challenges: 
It is difficult to measure norms; there are a lot of quality issues and little consistency in how norms are measured. Finding time for discussion and analysis can be challenging for a project, program, or initiative. This indicator is mostly used to evaluate the adaptive practices selected, not the program itself, which can result in a low prioritization of this indicator. It also is challenging, but not impossible, to get a good baseline of the project norms prior to the use of adaptive practices.
Related Indicators: 
A similar indicator is the number/percentage of intended users who report that a KM output reinforced or validated existing knowledge (indicator 35). Indicator 64 identifies outputs specifically from adaptive practice sessions.
Resources: 
Evidence-base for Collaborating, Learning, and Adpting (eb4cla): https://usaidlearninglab.org/eb4cla

Published Year: 

  • 2017
Last Updated Date: 
Wednesday, December 13, 2017