In the past few years, a number of tools pioneered, or most widely applied, in the business world have come to public interest work--the kind that government, nonprofits, and sometimes businesses too are doing to make a social impact.

One key example is logic modeling or theories of change. Not the most inviting labels, I know, but these models can be very useful and very powerful as tools for making a difference in the world. They're also known as "pathway" models because they challenge us to outline pathways of cause and effect linking "where we want to be" with "where we are now."

The term "logic model" seems more popular in the realm of business strategy: "What are the A-leads-to-B-leads-to-C conditions I need to create to change the ultimate outcome (D) that I care about?" When businesses ask the question, "D" is usually profitability or perhaps market share. When social-purpose organizations ask it, "D" is a lower disease rate or an increase in the number of children who graduate on time or in the number of low-income parents who earn wages and build assets, etc.

Evaluators studying social programs more often use the label "theories of change" to describe these same models. "Theory" sounds fancy and technical, but the idea is simply that when you make claims about what-effects-what, you are building up a simple theory about what will produce desired change in a social condition. By setting up a program or initiative based on that theory, you are putting your claims to the test.

Not a rocket science idea, but you'd be surprised at how often well-intentioned practitioners and their supporters have not made their assumptions explicit or tested them with evidence. Put differently, if you have no real theory of change--even an informal one, step-by-step--you're probably flying blind. It's important to be clear about your end outcomes (targets for change) and then "map backward" from there to what it will take to shift those outcomes.

Training and practice help, of course. Andrea Anderson of the Aspen Institute, who has worked with many local practitioners to apply theories of change, says that the habit of reasoning logically is hard to teach and learn, and so is questioning cherished assumptions, some of which turn out to be wrong or untested. It's not that theories of change are too complex or that people aren't smart enough. It's shifting the way they think that's tough sometimes.

Still, there are more and more free tools to help you leverage the power of logic models. Here on the site, we have a number of them posted, both under Strategy Tools/Planning (the function of these models is discussed in the strategy tool "Planning Together," and links are listed below it) and Program Tools/Multi-Issue. Hands-on tools and more background info include great stuff at CommBuild (Aspen Institute), Theory of Change Dot-org, KnowledgeBase (WK Kellogg Foundation), and the Bridgespan Group (in "Introduction to Business Planning for Nonprofits").

One key contribution of that last item on business planning is that it links theories of change developed for a specific program with the larger organizational arrangements needed to implement the program well. That is, a great plan without implementation capacity is just a plan. Theories of change make clearer what we need to do, but they don't guarantee we'll have the capacity to do it. Many for-profit organizations develop great product ideas but find they can't produce and get them to market well. The same is true for organizations that create and run social programs or more informal community initiatives. So use theories of change, but recognize that their usefulness is very specific and, as such, limited.

What's more, so-called technical planning--what exactly do we want to accomplish, and what exactly will it take, in the way of intermediate steps, to accomplish it?--is almost never entirely technical. Practitioners, funders, and others sometimes wrestle over how formal to make a theory of change, over whose knowledge counts as "expert" enough to rely on, over how soon a program should begin to show results, over how much investment in capacity is needed and by whom, and other issues. But to mix my metaphors, I'd rather wade into this sometimes-stormy water--if it helps get better results--than just fly blind.

A friend and colleague wrote from Los Angeles a few days ago with kind words about the website. She added that it should make a good complement to another, quite different website--that of an organization called Policylink (to which we link under "program tools/multi-issue").

I certainly hope my friend is right. We've posted links to quite a few websites that we hope this one complements. But it may help to offer a little more background on HOW and WHY different resources now on-line can complement one another.

There are many useful ways to "type" sites on the web, and we hope our site complements many key types. For purposes of the social problem-solving--and, in particular, the local public interest problem-solving--that is our focus here, some key types are:

A. "Portals" -- designed primarily to be clearinghouses, to highlight good work done by others (and often available on-line). It's not just an age of information anymore but of info overload. Portals or clearinghouses help us find our way to important stuff faster, usually by linking us to original resources available elsewhere (see below). Highlighting is, by definition, a selection and filtering process, though. So be mindful of what has been filtered out of sight--and perhaps out of mind. Ask: by what criteria were THESE items highlighted and not others? What else, not available here, might be important for the learning I want to do?

B. "Original resources/programmatic" -- sites designed mainly to share original material about specific domains of action or public interest, such as health, housing, econmic development, the environment, education, etc. Or newer, encompassing domains, such as "sustainable development," that may embrace several domains. The organizations producing this material and putting it on-line are public, private, and nonprofit. Some are direct producers and some are funders that provide the resources needed and help shape and disseminate the ideas. Our PROGRAM TOOLS section is focused on (B) type websites.

C. "Original resources/process and organization" -- sites concerned with social technologies, such as negotiation and visioning, or with means of organizing politically and operationally around any number of (programmatic) ends. Our STRATEGY TOOLS section is focused on (C) type websites.

The lingo gets tricky. Programmatic resources are about the substantive things we want to achieve and the areas in which we want to improve human life. That's why, in the main text of the site, I call these "ends" to go with the "means" of process and organization.

But the "substance of process" is well worth learning, too. The world won't make it on programmatic expertise alone, less and less so as our expectations about engaging stakeholders, cutting costs, developing better solutions, and so on evolve. That list covers HOW we work on stuff, not just what we work on.

"Strategy" is another tricky concept. The strategy tools on this site are, as I note above, process-focused. They're about the new civics and management of social problem-solving. But programmatic tools often include strategies, too: recipes for having an impact on a social condition.

I wrote about one of the most promising forms of program strategy--a logic model or "theory of change"--in an earlier entry of this log. (And lately, I've been thinking about big-picture strategies for accomplishing daunting and controversial things, such as making increased racial and ethnic and other forms of diversity work in changing cities and nations.) Fancy label aside, a "logic model" is an important tool for program strategy because it makes success more likely--and key gaps in our knowledge more evident.

Programs or process? "Substance" or civics? It's not either/or. For many practitioners, funders, educators, and others in the business of making the world better, a key question is this: what kinds of expertise do I want to develop in depth--and continually update--and for what kinds will I need to turn to others?

This site is, among other purposes, meant to help you explore just how wide and deep our learning about problem-solving can be. We're hoping for many complements, because so many groups are producing great stuff out there. Some more compliments (kinds words, kudos) would be nice, too.

Recently, I sat in on a meeting held by a nonprofit child advocacy organization. The meeting included the group's core staff, board members, and key volunteers. Held in a beautiful city park in a public meeting room, the gathering focused on the year ahead: How much should we focus on this issue or that, what do we need to learn about what's really going on in schools and neighborhoods, how much have we listened to the young people on whose behalf we do our work, and more. Everyone seemed motivated, eager to listen, eager to contribute.

As the day drew to a close, a member of the staff got up to lead a conversation about communication. Like many groups I've visited with (or heard about in the classroom), this one has a broad mandate, many willing souls, and never enough time to pay attention to everything or make sure the proverbial "left hand" of the organization knows what the right hand is doing.

But as the ideas for what to do about this recurrent challenge spilled onto the flipchart in front of the room, it hit me that the group was really tackling four more or less distinct challenges all at once, i.e. under the broad umbrella category "communication." It's worth thinking about how we all, in our communities or organizations, develop routines or capacity for addressing these:

(1) The classic left hand/right hand problem: Routine communication to allow coordination across the organization. Busy organizations with big, multi-dimensional scopes of work and entrepreneurial habits often struggle with this one. But so do organizations that just have weak operational processes. People in different parts of the organization often need each other to accomplish key goals, but the organization may not be set up to allow the day-to-day flows of information that coordination requires. Setting up effective teams that cut across units of the organization can help. Some nifty books on this include The Horizontal Organization, Structure in Fives (on why organizations get structured the way they do), and Groups that Work (and those that don't), which is about effective teams.

(2) Figuring out who knows what across the organization: Mapping and managing our knowledge. Beyond everyday coordination, sometimes we need special know-how about something and aren't sure whether this knowledge exists anywhere in the organization. Big companies invest in technological solutions to this one ("knowledge management" systems). But there are low-tech solutions for those with limited resources. For example, you can create a "face book" with everyone's picture and their key areas of expertise, asking members of your organization or community to update their profile once per month or so. Or create some other mechanism for cataloging the kinds of knowledge that different people have (not to be confused with cataloging all their knowledge! That would be impossible, and trying would be very costly). You simply want to "map" the areas where the organization has rich know-how so that the question "Does anyone in my organization know about X?" is easily answered. Small organizations can use daily communication mechanisms, such as meetings and email, to check. But bigger organizations. networks, and communities need to map a bit.

(3) Learning things we don't know: Mechanisms for ongoing learning, fresh perspectives, growth. In the "balanced scorecard" invented by organization experts at the Harvard Business School, "learning and growth" is a key dimension of organizational success. Most groups need to build in learning, challenge themselves with new perspectives on things, even assign people to do homework on something and come back and role play (e.g., take on the role of strong advocate or opponent) just to make colleagues or fellow community members think harder. The question isn't "How do we learn things that will reinforce what we already believe and the ways in which we already think?" but "How do we position ourselves to think in many ways and learn in new ways over time?" Some organizations create informal advisory groups (not be confused with a formal board of directors) to stay in touch with people who will challenge their thinking. Don't connect your organization only to people who know the kinds of things you already know or think just like you. Add "lateral thinking" and contrarian instincts where you can. "Communities of practice" (see links on this site) are one way to learn stuff with others who share your interests, not just swap the knowledge you already have.

(4) Planning and deciding together more effectively: Communication to improve input, deliberation, and decisions. The group I was visiting has strong norms of input, consultation, and deference to other's judgment. At the same time, it does political work and tries to balance independence with the virtues of coordination, accomodation, and consistency across the group. (After all, the reputation of an advocacy organization depends on what everyone connected to it does and says.) Designing ways to do this is the central theme of the "Planning Together" tool on this site, though there's much more one could say about how to do it in organizations.

Beyond day-to-day coordination, managing what we know, and learning new things and new outlooks, then, the last one is about communication that lets us shape each other's expectations and input on key decisions that the organization must make. It moves the focus from mere acting (operationally, on given strategies) in #1 and creating and sharing knowledge (in #2 and #3) to shaping strategies by deliberating, advocating, negotiation, and deciding amongst ourselves.