Outcome mapping is a project progress measurement system that was designed by the grant-making organisation International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
It is based on the outcome engineering model developed by Barry Kibel of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
[2] Report-backs based on outcome mapping would tend to contain more anecdotal evidence than more traditional measurement approaches.
Because of its deviation from traditional evaluation philosophy, outcome mapping may not be accepted by all donor organisations.
Outcome mapping defines six types of actions that project leaders can take to effect each individual progress marker.
E-class tactics ("external" or "environment") are aimed at the surrounding situation that groups or individuals may find themselves in.
Interviews, with 6 consultants, occurred in order to learn experiences of the individuals in providing OM training.
The report named a performance journal is essentially a collection of minutes of the meetings at which the project's progress with regard to the organisational practices.
The report named an outcome journal is an anecdotal record of any events that related directly or indirectly to the progress markers (the expect-to-see, like-to-see and love-to-see items).
Since outcome mapping is more concerned about contribution than attribution, it is said that it should not replace traditional metrics but merely complement it.
[7] An issue which has been addressed at IDRC workshops is the objection that outcome mapping procedures are too long and complex.