This article continues the series that I began last week regarding proposal development. The first topic was about how to ground proposals more soundly in the historical, current, and future context of the operating environment. Today’s topic is about demystifying “theories of change.” This is a concept that has become more common in donor solicitations in recent years.
Many proposal writers find them confusing and intimidating. Responding to a donor’s initial theory of change seems daunting, and coming up with one’s one theory may feel even more nerve-wracking and high-stakes.
Mine might be the minority view on this, but I really like theories of change. Boiled down to its purist form, theories of change are meant to explain the logic of how project activities are meant to achieve project objectives. We should all be able to explain why we think our proposed approach is the most efficient, effective, compelling way to implement an activity.
Historically, the idea of a theory of change has been captured in different ways. When I first started writing proposals (some years ago!), we often created high-level and more theoretical “conceptual models” to summarize the logic of our approach and sometimes created more technical “log frames” to explain the connections between project activities, outputs, and outcomes. Theories of change come from the same lineage as these other heuristics and, in the end, are meant to communicate why the organization developing the proposal believes that the approach is likely to achieve expected project outcomes.
Why, then, do so many people find theories of change so scary or off-putting? I have a few hypotheses for this. For example, there is no common template for theories of change, so they can be described in many ways. Some are very theoretical and high-level, and some can be quite specific. Some are presented in the form of a diagram; others are written in forms that mimic the legalize found the preamble of a policy statement or proposed law. Sometimes a solicitation will present what it calls a theory of change and then also ask offerors to write their own theory of change. Given the confusion about theories of change and how consequential they feel in proposal development, I understand why responding to them in solicitations can feel so unsettling.
However, theories of change don’t have to cause anxiety or fear. Following are three recommendations for approaching theories of change more effectively in proposal development:
- Break theories of change down to their most basic terms. Whether the theory is coming from the client or something that proposal writers craft themselves, remember that this is an exercise about the logical connections between activities, outputs, and outcomes. What makes you believe that a certain set of actions will lead to the desired result? Has this theory been tested? Were the circumstances of earlier successes similar enough to the current context to be confident in similar (or better) outcomes this time around? You can bolster confidence in your theory if your organization has successfully tested the theory previously. It is even helpful to go through a thought exercise of questioning the client’s theory of change. Does it make sense? How confident are you that the theory makes sense and is viable in the current situation? If not, are you in a position to challenge the client on this point and propose a different theory? Or a different set of actions that could lead to the desired result? Skillful proposal writers can communicate these points in ways that are collaborative and affirming instead of combative and dismissive.
- Remember that theories of change can be at different levels of project implementation. In solicitations, clients often present a grand theory of change about how the project overall is supposed to achieve its longer-term objectives. This can be high-level and somewhat abstract but still helpful in understanding the client’s logic for structuring the solicitation and, subsequently, how proposal writers might respond. At the same time, there can (and should) be theories of change at the level of project implementation, too. In fact, organizations should have a clear sense of how each proposed activity is contributing to the larger goal. If it is not possible to explain this connection in a cogent and compelling way, it is good to rethink that part of the implementation strategy.
- Remember, too, that the efficacy of any theory of change depends heavily on context and implementation. The value of a theory of change cannot be evaluated in the abstract. Each is rooted in assumptions (sometimes explicit, sometimes not) about the operating environment as well as proper execution. In this way, a theory of change is aspirational and represents what can be achieved under the right conditions. It is therefore important to consider these issues when evaluating an existing or creating a theory of change. How realistic is the theory under the current circumstances? What would our organization need to do to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk of failure? By thinking prospectively about these issues, the more confident the client will feel about a theory of change and the better prepared an organization will be for actual implementation.
What are your experiences in working with theories of change? How comfortable are you with them? How useful have you found them in thinking through proposals and then in latter implementation? Please join the conversation, and let us know what you think.
