Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Project schedules are logic models that focus on the timing of program activities. Value derives from the fact that schedule changes are not random. Why they occur, and how long they last, can reveal information that would not be easily revealed with other approaches to evaluation. Also, using project schedules as logic models forges a strong link between evaluation and program management. This article addresses three questions: How do models function in research? What makes project schedules a form of logic model? and How can evaluation data be gleaned from schedules? When using implementation schedules as a logic model, two guidelines must be observed. First, data collection must take place at regular intervals rather than be synchronized to program activities. Second, contact with stakeholders must respect their time commitments. The methodology will be illustrated with a case example from evaluating a “Peer to Peer” program to minimize unsafe electronic device use.

Keywords

logic model program theory project schedule systems complex

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Box

G. E. P

. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building (1954). Retrieved from Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a070213.pdf See also: Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Launer

R. L.

Wilkinson

G. N.

(Eds.), Robustness in statistics (pp. 201–236). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Cañas

A. J.

Carff

Hill

Carvalho

Arguedas

Eskridge

T. C.

… Carvajal

. (2005). Concept maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In Tergan

S. O.

Keller

(Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies (pp. 205–219). New York, NY: Springer.

Chen

H. T.

Pan

H.-L. W.

Morosanu

Nannette

(2018). Using logic models and the action model/change model schema in planning the learning community program: A comparative case study. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 33, 46–68.

Chen

H. T.

Rossi

P. H

. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283–302. doi:10.1177/0193841X8300700301 Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84973807296&doi=10.1177%2f0193841X8300700301&partnerID=40&md5=33f146aa4eef4196d9d6171677cf3c82

Complexity Explorer. (2017). Glossary of complexity terms. Retrieved from https://www.complexityexplorer.org/explore/glossary

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

Flyvbjerg

(2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Frechtling

J. A.

(2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. New York, NY: Wiley.

Fredericks

K. A.

Deegan

Carman

J. G.

(2008). Using system dynamics as an evaluation tool: Experience from a demonstration program. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 251–267. doi:10.1177/1098214008319446

10.

Funnell

S. C.

Rogers

P. J.

(2011). Purposeful program theory: The effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Hagge

McGee

Matthews

Aberle

(2017). Behavior-based safety in a coal mine: The relationship between observations, participation, and injuries over a 14-year period. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37, 107–118. doi:10.1080/01608061.2016.1236058 Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84992035025&doi=10.1080%2f01608061.2016.1236058&partnerID=40&md5=460537db1c84d3d289aae3d0f36f2a81

12.

Haselton

M. G.

Nettle

Andrews

P. W.

(2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In Buss

E. D.

(Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 724–746). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

13.

Hilbert

(2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 211–237.

14.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giuroux.

15.

Kaplan

(1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for the behavioral science. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

16.

Kerzner

(2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (11th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

17.

Klocke

(2007). How to improve decision making in small groups: Effects of dissent and training interventions. Small Group Research, 38, 437–468. doi:10.1177/1046496407301974

18.

Knowlton

L. W.

Phillips

(2007). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Krause

T. R

. (1996). The behavior-based safety process: Managing involvement for an injury-free culture (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Wiley.

20.

Larson

Gray

(2011). Project management: The managerial process (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

21.

Menzel

Mayer

R. J.

(1998). The IDEF family of languages. In Bernus

Mertins

Schmidt

(Eds.), Handbook on architectures of information systems (pp. 209–241). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

22.

Morell

J. A.

(Producer) (2015). Cross boundary insights: Plans, critical incidents, and outcomes. Practical application of systems to conduct evaluation: Cases and examples. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKgmjdzv-4I

23.

Novak

J. D.

Cañas

A. J.

(2018). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps.php

24.

Orrell

(2007). The future of everything: The science of prediction. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.

25.

Palisade. (2017). @Risk: Risk analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Retrieved from http://www.palisade.com/risk/

26.

PM4DEV. (2015). Project management glossary of terms. Retrieved from https://www.pm4dev.com/resources/free-e-books/129-project-management-glossary-of-terms/file.html

27.

Project Insight. (2017). Understanding task dependencies in project management. Retrieved from https://www.projectinsight.net/project-management-basics/task-dependencies

28.

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

29.

Ramakrishnan

G. K.

(2015). Behavior based safety efforts in KOC and its relevance to oil & gas industry. Paper presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference.

30.

Rebière

(2017). Mastering the Gantt chart: Understand and use the “Gantt Project” open source software efficiently! Author.

31.

Ritchey

(2012). Outline for a morphology of modelling methods: Contribution to a general theory of modelling. Acta Morphologica Generalis (AMG), 1, 2–20. Retrieved from http://www.amg.swemorph.com/

32.

Rogers

(2012). Scientific modeling. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modeling

33.

Rother

Shook

(2003). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to add value and eliminate MUDA. Cambridge, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute.

34.

Scientific-model. (n.d.). In YourDictionary. Retrieved from http://www.yourdictionary.com/scientific-model

35.

Sharot

(2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21, R941–R945. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211011912

36.

Sparrow

M. K.

(2000). The regulatory craft: Controlling risks, solving problems, and managing compliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

37.

Surowiecki

(2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.

38.

Taleb

N. N.

(2010). The black swan: Second Edition: The impact of the highly improbable (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.

39.

UsabilityNet. (2017). Critical incident technique analysis. Retrieved from http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/criticalincidents.htm

40.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W.K. Kellogg foundation logic model development guide. Retrieved from https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide

41.

Weisberg

H. I.

(2014). Willful ignorance: The mismeasure of uncertainty. New York, NY: Wiley.

42.

Weiss

C. H.

(1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program effectiveness. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

43.

Wikipedia. (2017). List of cognitive biases. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

44.

Wikipedia. (2018). IDEF. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEF

45.

Yeow

P. H. P.

Goomas

D. T

. (2014). Outcome-and-behavior-based safety incentive program to reduce accidents: A case study of a fluid manufacturing plant. Safety Science, 70, 429–437. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.016 Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84907333186&doi=10.1016%2fj.ssci.2014.07.016&partnerID=40&md5=6fa0b11c2da66a6dd1aab2f07099e1a4

Linking Management and Evaluation: Project Schedules as Program Models

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References