Results chains are a visual tool to show what a programme is doing and why. They illustrate the chain of successive changes that link programme activities with intended outcomes and impacts. They differ from theories of change in that a theory of change guides overall programme design and provides a broad vision for change, while results chains focus at the intervention level and provide a practical tool for monitoring impact at a more granular level.
Results chains should be developed for each intervention in a market systems programme and should fit within its overall theory of change. Their use is compulsory for programmes that want to comply with the DCED Standard.
Results chains provides a simple overview of what to consider when developing a results chain.
The use of results chains in MSD programmes
While results chains are commonly used in a wide range of development programmes, there are some specific issues to consider when using them in a market systems context. These include:
- Results chains specify linear pathways and therefore have limitations in dynamic situations where unintended results are likely. It is therefore important to be able to identify these.
- It is important to consider intervention timeframes. This may vary, but could be six months, a year or two years, depending on an initial guess on how long it should take the intervention to achieve change. Where there is considerable uncertainty, the horizon should be shorter.
- It is also important to frequently reconsider the logic for the intervention in light of what is happening in the field. This should include reflecting on the success of the intervention so far as well as questioning whether the underlying assumptions are correct.
Is it time to re-think results chains? offers some reflections on the use of results chains in MSD programmes and how they may be improved to reflect good practice.
Most market systems programmes begin with the piloting of an innovation such as the introduction of a new product, technology or business model with a partner. If this proves promising, subsequent interventions look to scale-up the innovation and encourage its diffusion into the wider market (crowding-in). Results chains should therefore be prepared in parallel with an assessment of the incentives that different market players have to change their behaviour. It is also important that the mechanisms through which innovations and learning are expected to be transferred from one market actor to another are set out in advance and described in intervention planning documents. It is particularly important to consider the role of market players that are not directly supported by the programme and how they may react.
Mapping out your results chain
Similar to theories of change, results chains involve a visual representation of the causal pathway that links the interventions to desired outcomes and impact. This involves identifying:
- Outputs: the direct products or services that result from the programme’s activities (e.g. number of partnerships facilitated).
- Outcomes: the changes in behaviour, relationships or practices that result from the outputs (e.g. farmers adopt new agricultural practices, buyers source coffee from local farmers, farmer cooperatives negotiate better prices).
- Impact: the broader changes in the market system that result from the outcomes (e.g. increased productivity, improved quality, more efficient value chains, greater inclusivity, increased incomes for smallholder farmers).
For each link in the causal pathway, clearly articulate the logical relationship between the different elements. Explain how the activities are expected to lead to the outputs, how the outputs are expected to lead to the outcomes, and how the outcomes are expected to lead to the impact. As with theories of change it is also important to explicitly state the assumptions that underpin each link in the results chain. See below for a good example borrowed from the BOSS project in Timor Leste.
Simplified horticulture results chain of the BOSS project:
