There is confusion in outcomes and performance management systems as to the types of outcomes which you are allowed to include in any system. This is reflected in criticisms such as: "no, you haven't given us the type of outcomes we want, the ones you've specified are all too low-level, they're just outputs"; or, alternatively, "no, the outcomes you've specified are all too high-level, how will you be able to prove that it was you who made them change?" A range of different terms are also used for outcomes, and sometimes used in different ways: e.g. final outcomes, impacts, intermediate outcomes, strategic outcomes, priorities, key drivers, outputs, activities etc.
Systematic Outcomes Analysis cuts through the potential confusion caused by contradictory demands about the level your outcomes should be at and the many terms used in outcomes and performance management systems by drawing on outcomes theory finding that outcomes can have five major features, these features are set out below:
Influencible - able to be influenced by a player
Controllable - only influenced by one particular player
Measurable - able to be measured
Attributable - able to be attributed to one particular player (i.e. proved that only one particular player changed it)
Accountable - something that a particular player will be rewarded or punished for
Using these features of outcomes enables us to be very clear about the type of outcome we are talking about when doing Systematic Outcomes Analysis. In particular it lets us distinguish between not-necessarily attributable outcomes (or more correctly their indicators - called I[nn-att] in Systematic Outcomes Analysis; and attributable indicators - called I[att] in Systematic Outcomes Analysis. Using this approach we are able to draw outcomes models which include all steps and outcomes at all levels. This type of model is very powerful for strategic planning and other purposes and is what Doers should focus on for strategic purposes. We can then go back to our model and identify which outcomes have attributable indicators for accountability purposes. This avoids conflicting demands about the level of outcomes which are allowed within an outcomes model.