Outcome references

To connect the model with expectations and evidence in practice, organizations can use outcome references: an outcome baseline for current outcomes, outcome targets for the outcomes expected if the chosen direction is realized, and outcome results for realized outcomes.

In plain terms

The positions in the Change Gap Model cannot be observed. Outcome references are the observable evidence organizations use instead: a baseline of where things stood, targets for what the chosen direction is expected to produce, and results for what actually happened. They are not the same as the conceptual positions they stand in for, and treating them as though they were is the most common way the model gets misused.

How it works

The model reasons about potential, which is counterfactual by construction. Nobody can observe the best that could reasonably have been achieved. But organizations can observe some things, and those observations can support reasoning about the positions even though they never equal them.

The outcome baseline records what the current state produces before execution starts altering it. Establishing it before that alteration begins avoids having to reconstruct it afterwards, which is harder and less reliable.

Outcome targets express what the intended outcomes should reach if the direction is realized. Where they are well founded and cover the outcomes that actually matter, they are the nearest practical stand-in for direction potential. Where they are conservative, incomplete, or set to be achievable rather than to be right, they stand in for very little.

Outcome results record what the realized state actually produced. Where they capture the relevant outcomes, including the ones nobody intended, they approximate the realized outcome position.

Comparing targets with results gives an indication of the execution gap. It is worth being precise about how weak that indication is. The targets may not have reflected what the direction could really achieve. The results may miss outcomes nobody thought to measure. Circumstances may have changed in ways that affect both. The comparison produces a question to investigate, not an answer.

And meeting targets proves less than it appears. It shows the targeted outcomes were realized. It says nothing about whether the targets were the right ones, whether the intent behind them was sound, or whether the direction preserved what was available. A change can meet every target while most of its potential was lost before execution began.

Related

• Outcome references connect The Change Gap Model to observable evidence.
• The Outcome baseline is evidence about the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position.
• Comparing targets with results indicates the Execution gap, and requires interpretation rather than arithmetic.
• Outcome validation is the practice that uses this evidence and works out what it implies.

Referenced by

• Outcome
• The Change Gap Model
• Validation
• Outcome validation