Standardisation : This is a recurrent theme in impact measurement . Investment professionals who come from a world of business and finance are often the people most in search of a standard way of measuring and comparing social performance , as is done with financial performance . Some respondents highlighted the need for comparability between organisations and “ simple , consistent formats for reporting trends over time against targets ”. This would enable a greater focus on longitudinal social performance analysis . However , front line organisations stressed the complexity of social issues and the need to maintain flexibility in measurement to fit to individual organisational context , goals and capacity .
“ Organisations must be allowed to develop impact measurement approaches because they see the benefit in it and in a way , appropriate to them , and not because there is a top down pressure ( from ‘ impact investors ’ or others ) to impose a measurement framework .”
This tension suggests a need to define more clearly what should be standardised – the process for measurement , the indicators , reporting , or the assessment of rigour . One solution proposed is to focus more on sector specific principles and standards that allow meaningful comparability across organisations delivering similar services . Most of the work to date on impact measurement has sought generic cross-sector approaches , but there is a lot that organisations can learn from peers in the same sector both in terms of sharing experience and in identifying common approaches , tools and indicators for measuring , managing and reporting on impact .
A sector-based approach can make sense when it is practitioner-led . In the UK , HACT has focused on developing tools that are specifically designed for housing organisations which were mentioned as straightforward and useful . Internationally , the GIIN is helping facilitate the development of more standardised , sector-based impact measurement methods and indicators in partnership with specialist sector bodies , including those in affordable housing , sustainable agriculture and clean energy .
Tyranny of data ? The tension between organisational and external stakeholder needs is highlighted by a sense from some that expectations around impact data are unrealistic . Complex measurement processes can be both a burden to frontline organisations and can mean that the quality of data reported suffers . There was a call for “ greater honesty in terms of what it is possible to measure and report on ”, and “ greater appreciation of the inherent uncertainty about benefits and the lack of transferability of findings from one context to another ”.
The concept of ‘ optimal ignorance ’ is perhaps useful here . Ultimately data should help answer the ‘ so what question ’ and provide answers that inform better decisions . Towards this end the concept of ‘ lean data ’ developed by Acumen is interesting . Designed specifically for social enterprises , Acumen engages social entrepreneurs in a conversation about what they want to know about their customers and then uses low-cost technology and
74 %
OF RESPONDENTS FELT THAT FUNDERS SHOULD FOCUS MORE ON IMPACT INFORMATION WHEN AWARDING GRANTS
methods to gather high-quality data quickly and efficiently . The data Acumen ’ s Lean Data team gathers is typically a mixture of both social performance and wider customer insights such as on consumer satisfaction , willingness to pay , and customer archetypes that help inform business decisions .
Despite SROI being the best-known impact measurement methodology , there was a plea not to bring everything back to monetary terms – a move that is particularly prevalent in the UK where charities and social enterprises are often expected to demonstrate how they deliver both value for money and savings to public expenditure . Monetising outcomes may be relevant and useful in specific circumstances but not all .
“ The continued move to monetize outcomes is a nonsense and common key impact themes are far more worthwhile .”
“ We need to focus on indicators that talk to real issues on the ground , across multiple dimensions of poverty and NOT try and bring everything back to monetary terms .”
50 | PPQ
Standardisation: This is a recurrent theme in impact
measurement. Investment professionals who come from a
world of business and finance are often the people most in
search of a standard way of measuring and comparing social
performance, as is done with financial performance. Some
respondents highlighted the need for comparability between
organisations and “simple, consistent formats for reporting trends
over time against targets”. This would enable a greater focus
on longitudinal social performance analysis. However, front
line organisations stressed the complexity of social issues
and the need to maintain flexibility in measurement to fit to
individual organisational context, goals and capacity.
OF RESPONDENTS
“Organisations must be allowed to develop impact measurement
FELT THAT FUNDERS
approaches because they see the benefit in it and in a way, appropriate
to them, and not because there is a top down pressure (from ‘impact
SHOULD FOCUS
investors’ or others) to impose a measurement framework.”
MORE ON IMPACT
This tension suggests a need to define more clearly what
should be standardised – the process for measurement,
INFORMATION WHEN
the indicators, reporting, or the assessment of rigour.
AWARDING GRANTS
One solution proposed is to focus more on sector specific
principles and standards that allow meaningful comparability
methods to gather high-quality
across organisations delivering similar services. Most of the work
data quickly and efficiently. The
to date on impact measurement has sought generic cross-sector
data Acumen’s Lean Data team
approaches, but there is a lot that organisations can learn from
gathers is typically a mixture of
peers in the same sector both in terms of sharing experience
both social performance and
and in identifying common approaches, tools and indicators for
wider customer insights such as on
measuring, managing and reporting on impact.
consumer satisfaction, willingness
A sector-based approach can make sense when it is
to pay, and customer archetypes
practitioner-led. In the UK, HACT has focused on developing
tools that are specifically designed for housing organisations which that help inform business decisions.
Despite SROI being the
were mentioned as straightforward and useful. Internationally, the
best-known impact measurement
GIIN is helping facilitate the development of more standardised,
methodology, there was a plea
sector-based impact measurement methods and indicators in
not to bring everything back to
partnership with specialist sector bodies, including those in
monetary terms – a move that
affordable housing, sustainable agriculture and clean energy.
is particularly prevalent in the
UK where charities and social
Tyranny of data? The tension between organisational and
enterprises are often expected to
external stakeholder needs is highlighted by a sense from some
demonstrate how they deliver both
that expectations around impact data are unrealistic. Complex
value for money and savings to
measurement processes can be both a burden to frontline
public expenditure. Monetising
organisations and can mean that the quality of data reported
outcomes may be relevant and
suffers. There was a call for “greater honesty in terms of what it
useful in specific circumstances
is possible to measure and report on”, and “greater appreciation of the
inherent uncertainty about benefits and the lack of transferability of findings but not all.
“The continued move to monetize
from one context to another”.
outcomes is a nonsense and common key
The concept of ‘optimal ignorance’ is perhaps useful here.
impact themes are far more worthwhile.”
Ultimately data should help answer the ‘so what question’ and
“We need to focus on indicators that
provide answers that inform better decisions. Towards this end
talk to real issues on the ground, across
the concept of ‘lean data’ developed by Acumen is interesting �FW6�v�VB7V6�f�6�ǒf�"6�6��V�FW'&�6W2�7V�V�V�vvW26�6���V�F��RF��V�6���2�b�fW'G��@���BG'��B'&��rWfW'�F���r&6�F�V�G&W&V�WW'2��6��fW'6F���&�WBv�BF�W�v�BF����p����WF'�FW&�2�( Ц&�WBF�V�"7W7F��W'2�BF�V�W6W2��r�6�7BFV6�����w��@��sBP��S w����