Theories for change or theories of change?

Theories of change are important, but are they a necessity? Read how the GRO programme embraced uncertainty and risk-taking, without a ToC.

Market systems development projects are involved in complex markets where the desired changes cannot always be clearly identified. Desired changes are like moving goal posts, because of complex socio-economic structures, non-existent relationships and interactions between different stakeholders, and to top this the project might be in a region dominated by more direct and solution driven development. Furthermore, stakeholders may have multiple theories of change and contradicting theories of how change needs to happen in that particular market. In these contexts, Theories of Change (ToC) might have limited applicability and a number of drawbacks.

I manage a market systems development project, Generating Rubber Opportunities in Myanmar (GRO). It is a multi-year project focused on natural rubber and land market in Southern Myanmar. As part of the project startup package we inherited the logframe and project documents. But GRO did not start with a "Theory of Change" and did not have one during the first year of the project. During the startup phase we also tried to deliberately "forget" that we had a logframe and project document. 

GRO's theory was to purposefully not have a Theory of Change! 

How did we survive without a Theory of Change (ToC)?

To start with, the team were not familiar with the concept and process of "theory of change." The team knew the overarching theory behind market systems interventions and change, but there were sceptics in the team who thought the approach would not work in the complex socio-economic structure of Myanmar. Most of the staff came from traditional aid and emergency response backgrounds, and had the tendency to want to provide a "solution." So even the idea of developing a theory of change gave them the canvas to draw the ideal future, where everything works out perfectly and everyone lives happily ever after.  

We made a futile attempt early on in the project's timeline to work on the ToC. However, there were assumptions, for example, that inputs lead to outputs, and that outputs lead to outcomes. During the startup, GRO advocated that we explore the constraints, the different relationships and networks within the sector; we keep it simple and ask the "why" questions; map the constraints and actors; and explore options as we see them regardless of whether the programme will attempt to solve the constraints. We tried to see all the links between different causes and symptoms, and we explored and probed the market players who we thought had the potential to bring in a change around the key market constraints. We did this by designing  "safe to fail" activities and interactions.  

To report to our donors, we worked on a business plan which did not look too far into the future nor did it promise to bring in desired changes. The desired change was a moving target and we needed to be on firm ground before we could lock down any targets. The business plan was pragmatic, built on key hypothesis and planned around short-term (2-3 month) incremental changes so it was safe to fail experiments, activities and interventions. To measure incremental changes, we identified milestones which were reviewed every quarter and reported to the donor. The milestones were simple enough to measure and also strategic enough to help us develop a mental model of what change is desirable and achievable. 

People become the ideas that surround them

A theory of change forces us to think through WHY we are doing what we do. Fantastic! But as an M&E tool it can cause as many problems as it solves. Often what happens is we take this usually pretty simplistic thinking based on anecdotal evidence and use it to define a logframe. Now the theory of change we made up in a workshop (maybe even with a couple of stakeholders – but sadly, usually not) has become the central justification for a linear approach to a complex system, giving it an added layer of justification rather than challenging it.

In hierarchal societies such as Myanmar, team members tend to adopt ideas uncritically when they come from senior members of the team, high-ranking government officials or veteran civil society members. It is much better to interrogate, question and then adapt by keeping the good bits and rejecting the bad ones. So with a theory of change there is a potential danger that the team will believe the theory and in no time, replace the theories and assumptions as targets. 

Did we gain from not having a TOC?

This depends on the capacity and experience of the team in handling complexity and uncertainty. The most significant benefit of not having a TOC for GRO was that this helped us to foster an exploratory mindset. The GRO team were encouraged to be more risk taking, tolerant of failure, and challenge the status quo. Our business plan allowed us to have evolvable short-term goals, so we could change course daily or weekly as we learned more about the stakeholder relations and shifting contexts.

I believe we also avoided the "focus trap" whereby projects often pursue only focused exploitation of familiar options when a change in circumstances or uncertainty demands broader exploration. Some team members explored and implemented new ideas, which they would never have thought of if they had a theory of what change they want to see and how they will bring about that change. 

Risks to not having a ToC?

Some might argue that without a ToC the project might lose its focus of the systemic change it wants to achieve. It may become difficult to explain to donors and stakeholders the change the project envisages. Furthermore, uncertainty can lead a project team to explore insufficiently and to assume that if the value of something cannot be quantified or is currently unknown, it is not actually there. 

GRO eventually developed its theory of change towards the end of year one when the team were more aware of the relationships and incentives of stakeholders and the shifting market dynamics. However, the GRO Theory of Change was still as broad and general as it could be. We avoided using the ToC diagram, instead we used a Narrative Theory of Change. The reason for avoiding the diagram was that every time we tried to create one, it would become a linear model, with obvious choices. 

Hindsight bias 

If we had a ToC at the start and we had observed some of the anticipated changes, it is likely that someone would say, "I knew all along this would happen."

Hindsight bias explains the tendency of people to overestimate their ability to have predicted an outcome that could not possibly have been predicted. When hindsight bias deceives us into believing that what has happened was inevitable, it can prevent us from exploring possibilities for our future and insight on what really caused the change.

The first step in overcoming hindsight bias is to recognise the near-infinite number of possibilities for the project’s future. Looking back, the past looks like a single line leading to today. Going forward, visualise that one line breaking into thousands of lines, all representing possibilities. 

It is important to recognise that the future is not fixed by the past.

Theories of Change are important, but a necessity..?

I am not questioning the motives for wanting a theory of change, because it is entirely relevant to have one. But I also believe it’s essential to keep doors open in the startup phase of a project, so that theories of change do not limit space for learning and exploration.

It is essential to treat the ToC as a compass and not a map. We only need a compass when we want to look for the direction we are moving or want to move. Maps are for definite routes, and blindly following one can lead to a dead end. 

This blog is part of our series on adaptive management.