annex: for further reading on toc 1 further reading

• Annex: for further reading on ToC

1

Further reading

ToC content

• What is a ToC?• Steps in constructing it

Stakeholder based• Demand led• Supply led• Some remarks about workshops

DeductiveInductiveConcluding remarks

2

Steps in constructing a ToC

1. Situation analysis

2. Outcome chain

3. Focusing and scoping

4. Theory of action

5. Narrative

6. Validation

7. Response to validation

3

1) Stakeholder theory via a) demand or b) supply led workshops2) Deductive approach 3) Inductive approach

ToC content




4

Step 1: Situation analysis-1

• Deficit oriented: existing problems and future threats?Who is affected? Directly/indirectly?

• Individuals, households, groups, organisations, communities, society…

What do we know about nature/size, history, change over time of the problem/treath?

Known causes (for prevention)• Which ones more important? • Known causal pathways?• How addressed in past? Success/failure of it?

Known consequences (for remediating) of problem / treath? Is this changing?

• For those directly/indirectly affected

Rogers and Funnel p. 155

Step 1: Situation analysis

• Also non-deficit oriented: what strengths? Future opportunities?

• Looks for data/evidence as well as weaknesses in the evidence base /data

• Crucial for relevance of intervention also over time: avoid continued focus of resources on a causal factor that has largely been adressed (counter intertia)


7

Example taken from Rogers and Funnel

Step 2: stakeholder outcome chain-1

• Nature of the issue and its causes should be clear (fact finding done)

• Who are key decision-makers Interview them (best face to face)Understand their biases, what is “off the table”, how they

see the issue

• Invite many perspectivesHelps with identifying outcomes important to different

groups, especially participants/target groupsMinimum 6-8 persons (assume some will drop out after

first meeting so start with 15)

• Run workshops of minimum 2 hours, preferably 3-4 hours


• Workshop session 1: long term outcomeIdentify a workable long term outcome

• That the initiative can realistically achieve• That everyone involved understands

Different from consequences of this outcome:• Do not want to be held accountable for that• Draw a line of accountability to make clear that above

this line line it would be unreasonable to expect a significant direct contribution as non-intervention factors outweigh intervention ones

• Line moves up and down as opportunities and limits become clearer e.g. adding partners may lead to higher line

Theory ofaction

Theory of change

Revisit scope/focus

Revisit actions

Rogers and Funnel


Round 1 :

• ask question:

How will you know success?

If the newspaper were to write a headline on your

success, what would it be?

What do funders expect to see?

• Write answers on post-its

• Group similar ideas

• Agree those that should be kept


Round 2: • Given results of round one, ask timeline• Then ask to write long term goals (one per post it)• Group similar ones• Ask people with statement representative of a

group to explain• Discuss key phrases and differences• Write agreed words on post-it• Move outlier ideas and any pre-conditions to a

“parking lot”


• Workshop session 2 (and 3, etc.): backward mappingWhat outcomes to achieve long term

outcome?• First row 4-6 preconditions• More is too complex

Caution not to identify actions (put them on a sheet labelled “interventions”)

Will also identify assumptions as conditions assumed to exist and to continue

• If unsure, best to include as outcome


Continue backwards mapping for each outcome

• Focus always on immediate ones, park others• Ask about barriers, then flip them into a positive

condition• Ask about strengths• Group similar outcomes• Look for those you can place at top / bottom

(where intervention has first effect)• Have group discussion on which ones to use (no

need for perfection, language can be changed later)


Outcomes you do not want to address (e.g. because others address it or it is beyond your influence) do not have to be unpacked

Identify crucial feed-back loops (using dotted lines)Before every meeting, send out copy of map for

reviewAt start of every meeting, facilitator reviews map and

any changes made (e.g. claryfying outcome statements, eliminating duplicates, removing indicators or actions, making the pathway logic clear)

Stop when +/- 3 or 4 rows down from the initial row: check if all necessary casues are there (if full breadth and depth chosen)


• Tips and tricks:Stakeholders may want to offer outputs instead of

outcomes: the trick is to ask what the output is for Check if there is an opportunity to chunck together specific

outcomes into a category (eg instead of very different skills, just classes of skills)

Check if there are not too big leaps where not clear what is supposed to happen

• Typically distances between steps larger at top and smaller at bottom due to less knowledge

Rare that lower outcomes need to be completely fulfilled before work can start on higher ones

• Small wins at higher level may make it easier to work at lower level• May help to get some experience at higher level to feed-back to

lower level, to fine tune it

Rogers and Funnel


• Nested chains:Same overall templateVarious tailored sub-interventions for different target

groups or local adaptations• Some may even bypass some steps

Breaking down if-then steps in more underlying detail

• Branches:Several interlinking pathways may together bring

about the outcomeOr, there can be alternative pathways that each can

bring about the outcomeWhat is the relative importance of each?

Rogers and Funnel


• A good chain:Produces a coherent causal model:

• Explains how intervention contributes • Avoids dead ends, unconnected to an important result (itself

linked to a need) May be a feedback loop that is needed

Is logical:• Makes every arrow meaningful

Leave out weak causal links

• Indicates the direction of expected change: Write out outcomes (e.g. increased well-being) instead of just

putting a key concept

• Shows sequential and consequential progression Outcomes to the left come earlier than those to the right Parallel strands are shown as such with clarity where they link up

Rogers and Funnel


Communicates clearly:• Focus on key elements

Make stages clearGroup related outcomes together in a larger box

• Avoids too many arrows and feed-back loopsUse dotted lines only for important loops

• Remove any visual elements that do not add meaning

• Ensure readability If many elements that would necessitate too small letter

type, do an overview and then unpack on seperate pages

• Avoid sensitive words or acronyms

Rogers and Funnel

Step 3: focusing and scoping-1

• Focus is a subset of scope of outcomesScope is full range of outcome you are interested inFocus consists of outcomes you will actually work on

and that you can contol / heavily influence

• Take into consideration what others are doing or will do at the boundaries resources you will havecomparative (dis)advantage

• Clarify what strategies / tools are/will be at hand and clarify what they try to influence (focus) and what you expect other actors at the boundaries to do



• Clarify how focus will shift within the scope over time (sequencing)

• Use color coding to show path of influence• The more complex an intervention, the more fluid the

boundaries in terms of scope and focus to accommodate emerging needs, opportunities and outcomes Complex interventions will need to use a range of tools at the

same time or at a particular time as the need arises Should be ready to seize an opportunity to achieve in-scope

outcomes if it arises, rather than waiting for in focus outcomes to be realisied

Rogers and Funnel

Step 3: focusing and scoping-3• Avoid restricting theory of change to its focus as it…

may not extend beyond the banal• Eg why should we change awareness again?

can become self-serving, losing sight of purpose fails to see opportunities to influence out of focus conditions that

are important for its purpose fails to see it should interact with other actors who can bring about

(need to be stimulated) OR erode (need to be dampened) conditions important for its purpose:

• Higher in chain: to avoid futility• Lower in chain: to clear roadblocks (preconditions)

fails to see how causes are changing as well as who is being affected

may underclaim contribution to outcomes may overlook unintended outcomes because of inward

perspective

Rogers and Funnel


• Scope:Narrow and shallow:

• focus on pre-conditions that can be affected directly (narrow)• Pathways not drilled down to where action starts (shallow)• Use only for summary

Narrow and deep:• Used for initiatives that rely little on partners or on influencing

other actors or that are simple and small

Broad and shallow:• Use when funder wants many routes to the outcomes exploited• Leaves it to promotors to propose

Broad and deep:• Some outcomes may be beyond intervention• For some outcomes, partners should take care of them

ActKnowledge

24Rogers and Funnel

25

Step 4: theory of action-1

1. Make clear what the targeted outcomes would be like if achieved

Attribute definition of outcome = measures + how we would know if they go in the right direction

2. Determine what is required to influence these attributes in terms of what we will do

3. Determine other required influences that are brought about by factors we make assumptions about

4. Finally, formulate the interventions (input-activity-output)


• First, take targeted outcomes from chain and makes clear what it would look like if achievedDefine terms (conceptualise)Define attributes in terms of

• What? Nature of the outcome: e.g. what skills Quality: e.g. how good (reliability, accuracy, speed, equity, …) Quantity: how much, what proportion, increasing/decreasing

• With whom? Numbers and types of target groups / participants and their needs Attributes important to each Distribution of outcomes

• Where (location)?• When?

Timeliness eg. in responding to client requests Milestones for achievement of a certain level of outcome


Step 4: theory of action-3• How?

Cost Minimal disruption of other interventions and interests Equitable Complying with rules Respecting dignity and self-determination (eg avoid

stigmatising)

Trade-offs among them (eg quality versus quantity)Comparisons to tell whether attribute is being

achieved:• Change from baselines, norms, standards, targets,

descriptions (e.g. new characteristics of an organisation), can also be list of examples for the outcome (for different contexts, groups) to deal with complexity

Rogers and Funnel

28


• When using targets be careful for perverse effects:

best to use scale from least to most desirable with thresholds rather

than “targets”

make clear it is just to understand progress NOT necessarily due to the

intervention

• Derived from literature, policy statements, experts, historical

M&E data, general statistics

Not just what is easily measurable but full range of

what is desirable

29

• X nr women with management potential at the head office in Brussels have been promoted to managerial positions with at least 10 subordinates by December 2013, on a fair basis.

• X% of women with management potential at the head office in Brussels are satisfied or very satisfied concerning their career development by December 2013 and a much smaller Y% are neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Quantity

Quality When

WhoWhere

What

How

30Rogers and Funnel

Step 4: theory of action-5Consult stakeholders:

• Recipients, implementers, policy-makers, experts,…• as well as partner interventions, those who are affected or

denied access and who require some safeguards of their interests

Special attention to social justice required Attributes will be different for different targeted subgroups May even require some different outcomes (iteration back to

theory of change) Attributes required regarding distribution of outcomes (where to

concentrate efforts) to ward of creaming

• Differences of opinion are to be expected

Attributes important for coordination among those delivering components of an intervention!

Rogers and Funnel

Step 4: theory of action-6• Second, make testable assumptions about

intervention factors that affect each attribute and how well and to what extent they will hold:Within control or heavy influenceResources: adequacy, dependability, diversity,

flexibilityQuality, quantity, timeliness of activities, service

delivery, output and throughputManagement and support activities: HR, leadership,

governance, incentives, planning, data, M&E, improvement processes, relations management (with stakeholders, partner, public), risk management (of external factors)

Rogers and Funnel


• Third, make assumptions clear of non-intervention factors, positive, negative or interactive (good for some, bad for others) that effect each attribute:This should have been done already to some extent

when constructing the outcome chain, but here we repeat this, only for the outcomes we are targeting, checking if we did not forget anything e.g.

• Broad context factors (socio-econ-political….)• Government policies, rules…• Activities of partners and other actors• Public opinion groups and media, intervention critics

Rogers and Funnel p 222


• Characteristics of participants/target groups: Demographic Past experiences Needs, expectations, demands

• Changing nature and scale of issues to address

If a non-intervention factor is seen as a barrier to success:

• Integrate as intervention factor: address it head on• Focus effort on some aspect to manage risk in a particular

situation• Work around it

If it is doubtful a non-intervention factor will hold• Formulate actions that help improve the probability (e.g.

influence partners)

Rogers and Funnel p 222

35

• Nr of women with management potential at the head office in Brussels have been promoted to managerial positions with at least 10 subordinates by December 2013, on a fair basis.

Quantity

Quality When

WhoWhere

What

How

In the intervention this requires…-support from supervisor and senior management.Outside the intervention this requires:-enough vacancies for such positionsEtc…

36Rogers and Funnel


• Fourth, identify intervention actions (use resources and turn them into outputs)Towards affecting the attributes of each targeted

outcome • Not as whole but for each• Of course, this means some actions will reappear for several

outcomes

Make clear who does what in the intervention with which resources

• Input-activity-output

Make clear what actions are assumed from outside the intervention

• make clear if you have actions to increase probability of those “external” actions

Rogers and Funnel P. 233+ 238

Worst-Off girls learning improves

Unintended effect: Boys’ education suffers

Worst-Off Girls’ Behaviour & Direct Benefit Change Assumptions & Risks Worst-off girls have

access to schools Worst-off girls education

supported by parents and community

Worst-off girls have time to study

Schools can adequately accommodate girls

Focus on girls is not disruptive to boy’s education

Other factors Internet access becomes

widely available

Impact Assumptions & Risks Resources and will continue

for multi-year involvement

Theory of Reach for Enhancing Education Outcomes for Worst-Off Girls

Worst-Off girls more engaged in and wanting an

education

Improved education outcomes for worst-

off girls

Teachers provide (all) girls with more empathetic and

supportive teaching in schools

Worst-off girls are provided transportation to schools

Engaged with parents & communities with worst-off girls

Support Activities

intervention activities

results

timeline

timeline

Engagement with governments

Engagement with NGOs

Partner Activities

Source: John Mayne, IPDET 2013

39Rogers and Funnel

40Rogers and Funnel

Step 5: Narrative in ToC

• Narrative: Conveys major elements of the theoryHow the elements work togetherOne or two pages (incl. history of how

initiative came to be and some context)Can have different ones for different

audiences, highlighting other elements

• For communication use: pathway (not too detailed, colourful) and narrative

Actknowledge

Step 6: validating the theory-1

• Internal validity:Clarity of description:

• Description of extent, nature, causes, consequences of the issue to be adressed

• Outcomes and how achieving those addresses the issue• Planned actions• External and contextual factors• Testable: clear when attributes achieved?

Outcomes chain:• Sequence, timing of actions throughout the chain• What is achieved for whom by whom• Backbone but on its own not enough (needs detailed

action plans too)

Rogers and Funnel

Step 6: validating the theory-2 Are outcomes linked to causes that gave rise to the issue

AND are they covering preconditions (e.g. attracting participation)

Plausible and feasible:• When starting at the top, do we find everything sufficient to

achieve this outcome? Can we work our way down like this? No large gaps in the logic?

• Are there adequate activities (with adequate resources) where necessary? From partners? Are there activities that are NOT linked to an outcome?

• Some outcomes are meant to be progressively strengthened e.g. competences where we can depict this with a spiral

• Logic does not imply success: other theories can also be logical

Are the mechanisms for change given: the reasons why we can draw an arrow between outcomes?

Rogers and Funnel

Step 6: validating the theory-3

• External validity:Is the theory consistent with the lastest

evidence base?• In terms of the nature, extent, causes and

consequences?• In terms of effective practices?

Is it consistent with broader theories?Does it consider context?

• “as long as…” statements about (positive or negative) conditions not affected by the intervention

Rogers and Funnel

Step 7: response to validating

• Conduct additional research• Establish more realistic objectives• Clarify links between intervention and

higher level objectivesMay require clarifying higher level objectives

next to intervention ones

• Strengthen coordination with partnersHow they will make interdependencies work

• Adding, subtracting, strengthening, refining strategies

Rogers and Funnel

ToC content




46

Supply led stakeholder theory-1

• Step 1: identify ultimtate goal, as a vision statementBroad enough to make everyone comfortable,

inspired,… e.g. are employees are healthy and safe

• Step 2: consider strategies• Step 3: create “so that chains” for each strategy• Step 4: link all strategies with outcomes to the

goal• Step 5: test logic• Step 6: articulate assumptions (context)

Supply led stakeholder theory-2

48

Training

Better skills

Better employability

Employment

Better income

Poverty reduced

Europe 2020

Eternal peace

Danger of „Chimney thinking“

Source: V. Kvaca

Adapted from C. Weiss

ActionTeacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

ToC content




52

Using workshops for divergence

• Use heterogenous groups or different homogenous groups representing different perspectives in parallel:Encourages divergence, critical thinking,

innovationCan represent particular perspectives:

conflicting or compatible?Useful to address simmering conflicts:

sometimes enough just to give due recognition

Rogers and Funnel

Success factors for workshops-1

• Get the right people: some people prefer to operate more intuitively rather

than analytically; others may lack the strategic thinking skills and perseverance

• Get leadership support, at least at the beginning, to generate engagement Ideally also checking in from time to time

• Convince stakeholders that their involvement means more control over implementation and possible evaluation

• Have meetings long enough to make substantial progress (developing a part, getting agreement)

Rogers and Funnel

Success factors for workshops-2

• Make the link to implementation planning as soon and often as possible

• Avoid big revisions by a facilitator / developer outside of the meeting as this creates disengagement

• Recognise that not all stakeholders are able to participate (and not all people in a stakeholder organisation): consensus may be limited to only those who actually participated so for more controversial programmes, invest in broader based consultations of the “agreed” theory

Rogers and Funnel

Concept mapping instead of workshops-1

Funder’s Policies and ProceduresOperations andManagement

Resource Utilization

Community Involvement

Communication, Collaboration, Harmonization

Scientific Agenda-setting

Biomedical objectivesRelevance to Participants

“Coordinated clinical research networks will be successful if…”

41

Difficult in practice to get all stakeholders to express their view

Appropriate human and infrastructure Resources are in place

Funder’s Policies and Procedures

Inputs Outputs Short Term Outcomes

Activities Longer Term Outcomes/

Impact

Collaboration & Communication (Communication, Collaboration, Harmonization)

Operations and Management processes are in place

Community Involvement

Scientific agenda is Relevant to Participants

High quality scientific results and increased knowledge (Biomedical Objectives)

Treatment and prevention measures (Biomedical Objectives)

Community input (Community Involvement)

Scientific Agenda Setting processes

Harmonized systems and procedures (Communication, Collaboration, Harmonization)

Scientific research plan and priorities (Scientific Agenda Setting)

Increased capacity of developing world sites (Resource Utilization)

Recruitment & retention goals met (Community Involvement)

Results Published (Biomedical Objectives)

Biomedical Objectives: HIV/AIDS mortality and morbidity reduced

Integrated use of developing world sites (Resource Utilization)

42

Concept mapping instead of workshops-2

Issues with stakeholder participation

• Both in LFA and ToC participation of relevant stakeholders is seen as key to create common understanding and ownership, but in practice, especially under time pressure, participation tends to be problematic target groups themselves are usually ignored and participants in

meetings/workshops usually are not the decision-makers differences of opinion among stakeholders are bound to exist and it may

not be feasible to resolve them without resorting to abuse of power on the other hand stakeholders can be all too “happy to agree” as long

as there will be funding coming in for them These processes are very demanding (e.g. formulating problems

“correctly” in LFA is quite difficult as is formulating an outcome chain) It discriminates against people who cannot read or have impaired eye-

sight as the method relies heavily on visualisation the assumption isalso that it is not too hard to find a facilitator schooled

in “LFA/ToC” AND in group dynamics; in practice, these people are quite rare

Rogers and Funnel

ToC content




59

Different ways: deductive ToC building-1

• Deductive development from formal and informal documentation (both from the intervention as well as wider e.g. academic sources)Used to identify how an intervention is supposed to

work (espoused theory)Check intervention documentation (guidelines,

reports, performance information, previous evaluations) for gaps or inconsistencies (if…then statements)

Go through relevant substantial literature (academic, other evaluations of similar interventions)

Rogers and Funnel

Different ways: deductive ToC building-2 Not cut and paste but to inform theory development

for the particular context(s) where the intervention is to be deployed

Look for evidence about the problems, issues, opportunities (e.g. existence of strenghts), factors of relevance, relevant actors, solutions, practices…

• Risk that this process yields theories that were never in the minds of the intervention designers and alienates themE.g. theorist thinks that training is used to build

knowledge where designer only intended to get people together to build social capital

Rogers and Funnel

Research based theories

62

Research: rational choice models

Knowledge/belief Attitude BehaviourIntention

Attitude can be summarised as propensity to like/dislike. Affect can be

enthusiasm, fear, disgust, etc…

Research: theory of reasoned action

Social, specific to a behaviour: “perception that most people deemed of importance think the behavour should or should not happen”.

This value and intention is also affected by norms.

Attitude is the consequence ofbalancing beliefs with the value I place on the characteristics present in the beliefs (eg I can believe working will earn me money, but I may not care much for money)

Research: theory of planned behaviour

Do I think I can do it? (related to self-efficacy)

Research: MODE modelMODE views theory of planned behaviour below as only one possibility

Equally possible however is that attitudes directly affect behaviour, without any conscious deliberation when under (time)

pressure. Our attitudes then serve as a heuristic to directly determine what we will do.

Research: theory of interpersonal behaviour

Becomes stronger as past behaviour accumulates

Rational choice

PHASE1

PDPcoach

engages in analysis

with voluntary

participants

Part. have more insight in own competences

Part have more insight in personal

interests and what is deemed of value in

work for them

Part. have more insight in alternative

careerpossibilities in the (linternal) labour

market

Part. have more insight in alternative realistic future work

situations

Part. have increased

motivation to change situation

Part. make conscious choice to deal with

specific developmentissues from the

analysis

Part.enter intoPhase 2:

drawing up an action plan

Minimum level of trust in coach

Minimal levelof motivation of

participant

Minimum reflective and language

capacity of participant

Sufficient absence of other concerns that crowd out reflection (e.g. a crisis situation

at home)

Coach has requiredcompetences EXERCISE: what has causal power here?

• The TOC is clearly a variant of rational choice theory (CC) with the behaviour of interest (PC) being to develop competences and autonomously self-reflect

• Social norms are not present (PC as added in Theory of planned behaviour) Could be of interest to study if social norms are not the dominant

factor here e.g. if participants engage in the process because they feel it is

what they are supposed to do, NOT because they are so interested in the outcome as such

EXERCISE: what has causal power here?

• Another theory could be that the PDP just provides for the first time a structured opportunity for advancement that was not there before Participants may already know what they want to develop What was missing was a connection with them from the side of

company

• Habit formation could also play a role (PC added as in Theory of interpersonal behaviour) Participant may need to exercise self-reflection regularly for it to

become a “habit”

• We now already have four theoretical variants that are not mutually exclusive!

EXERCISE: what has causal power here?

ToC content




72

Different ways: inductive ToC building

• Inductive development from how the intervention operates in practiceTheory in use (most current) rather than espoused (older

version of a) theoryBased on observations at point of service delivery in field

closest to participants/target groups of the intervention (using field visits, interviews)

Expect to see differences in practice and views across sites and people:

• Variation can be functional adaptation to complex situation but also faulty, unregulated implementation of what should be relatively simple components of an intervention

• Non-variation may conceal divergence (e.g. all using same indicators because it was obligatory says nothing about views concerning the intervention)

Rogers and Funnel

ToC content




74

Who to involve taking the lead?

• Who takes the lead in developing the theory:Intervention implementors and those who on decide

funding (MA, policy-makers…) with evaluator/theorist as technical “mentor” only

Evaluator/theorist facilitates theory development:• Critical role: noting gaps, inconsistencies, questioning

legitimacy of assumptions• Substantial input role: drawing on literature, interviews with

stakeholders, knowledge of other interventions, substance experts

Evaluator/theorist develops theory• Produce an initial theory for discussion by stakeholders• Requires active involvement of stakeholders to ensure they

can provide input, understand and commit to the theory

Rogers and Funnel

Who else to involve?

• Who else should be involved:Participants, target groups, … are key to

understand what in an intervention will affect their behaviour

Staff and management are key to further develop/improve theory

M&E staff and implementors need to be involved in defining what routine monitoring information can and should be gathered and how to use theory in evaluation

Funders/policy-makers also need to be involved if the theory will later be used for evaluation

Rogers and Funnel

Reasons why stakeholders resist theory building

• Intervention staff may have inherited intervention they consider to be faulty and they do not want this to become clear

• Or intervention was established just for political reasons and it is not worth developing theory as it will not change anything

• It could expose and fire up stakeholder conflict• Maintaining ignorance means power for some• Hidden agenda: intervention may have elements unacceptable

to the population or partners or support minor agenda’s (e.g. favouring particular groups, was part of a bargain etc.)

• Staff may already know the intervention has limited potential for impact and unless they believe making the theory explicit will help to redevelop the intervention, they may be reluctant to be faced with the lack of impact

Rogers and Funnel

Dealing with conflicting theories

• Compare using logical argument or evidence to show which one is better

• Negotiate a common pathTo be avoided if fundamental differences remain

• Develop an amalgam:Different strands of theory interact or run in parallellCould just be complementing paths (eg different target

groups) with initially unintended but desirable outcomes possibly for initially unintended target groups

Include negative theory with possible unintended undesired outcomes

• Allow to stand as alternatives until sufficient evidence to judge their merit


Revisiting theory

• When context or initial problem changes• When evidence base changes• When staff or stakeholders change (to develop

understanding and committment)• Evaluators use the theory to evaluate but they

should also keep an open mind about it:Iterative evaluation process where emerging paths

need to be explored Receptiveness to unintended outcomes

• Changes should be documented (narrative or visual)

Rogers and Funnel

annex: for further reading on toc 1 further reading

Documents

funnel slide

stakeholder outcome

higher line slide

inductive approach slide

stakeholder theory

line line

toc content

workable long term outcome