Interactive Logic Models: Using Design and Technology to Explore the Effects of Dynamic Situations on Program Logic

Abstract

Logic models are commonly used by evaluators to illustrate relationships among a program's inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. They are useful in helping intended users develop programs, communicate a program's theory of change, and design evaluations. However, as static documents, logic models can be challenging to build, work with, and present to stakeholders, especially for large and complex programs. Challenged by this inadequacy of static logic models, a program evaluator turned to a graphic designer and a software developer for help. Together, this interdisciplinary group developed web-based software (Dylomo) that allows evaluators to create logic models that better communicate the logic within the model. In this paper, we describe the process by which this interdisciplinary group created this new technology—including a user-testing experience at the Canadian Evaluation Society Conference in Canada in June 2016—to build and present logic models that use interactivity and allow program evaluators to more easily demonstrate the logic within a complex program and to visually explore the potential effects of changes within the program's landscape. This software is freely available on the web, so readers can apply it to their own evaluation practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benyon

, Turner

, & Turner

(2005). Designing interactive systems: People, activities, contexts, technologies. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.

Bostock

(2015). Data-driven documents (D3). Retrieved 8 May 2017 from: https://d3js.org/

Cooke

(2010). Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: A technical communication approach. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3), pp. 202–215.

Duignan

(2016, March 23). How do linear models address the complexity in which we work? Retrieved 8 May 2017 from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-linear-models-address-complexity-which-we-work-duignan-phd

Forss

, Rebien

C. C.

, & Carlsson

(2002). Process use of evaluations: Types of use that precede lessons learned and feedback. Evaluation, 8(1), pp. 29–45.

Lysy

(2016). Creating a visual interactive logic model. Retrieved 8 May 2017 from http://freshspectrum.com/interactive-logic-model/

Patton

M. Q.

(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Snow

M.E.

, & Snow

N.L.

(2016). Accelerating Your Logic Models: Interactivity for Better Communication (workshop). Canadian Evaluation Society conference, St. John's, NL, Canada.

Svensson

, & Cousins

B. J.

(2015). Meeting at the crossroads: Interactivity, technology, and evaluation utilization. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2). Retrieved 8 May 2017 from: https://evaluationcanada.ca/system/files/cjpe-entries/30-2-143_0.pdf

10.

Virzi

R. A.

(1989). What can you learn from a low-fidelity prototype? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 33(4), pp. 224–228.

11.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998). W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide. Retrieved 8 May 2017 from: http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide