Logic mapping (sometimes Most useful for Use of diagrams and flow Best used for issues where the That agreement may be Often needs an independent called intervention logic) RMA provisions charts set out expected objective is clear and agreed. reached on how to manage facilitator to help keep where there are a range of cause-effect relationships an RMA issue if all parties discussion on track and A method of determining the Does not seek to place RMA and non-RMA actions between actions and feel that they have an equal focused. appropriateness of provisions importance on one criteria or to coordinate. outcomes. share of the task ahead. where the main issue is how option over another, although as Likely to involve a series of to achieve an outcome. The The diagrams make the process of mapping proceeds, meetings and discussions actions needed to generate assessment of efficiency and key linkages become established. based around white boards, outputs that in turn achieve effectiveness easier for a large maps, sticky notes and Doesn't generate a ‘winner’ outcomes are mapped, but in range of participants. the like. between options. reverse order, starting with May highlight Needs commitment from key outcomes and working interconnections between stakeholders to participate. backwards to actions. This different outcomes and help identifies a clearly preferred to highlight the range of implementation path. It is actions (RMA and non-RMA) most appropriate for need to achieve an outcome. RMA provisions, for example, provisions that Can help generate new require a number of actions to management options. be coordinated; and where the emphasis is on modifying how resources are used by people and communities, for example, management of streams. This approach has a focus on effectiveness, and is less able to address efficiency, though it can do so to a degree. An example of logic mapping (called structured decision-making or SDM) is its use in the .
Logic mapping (sometimes called intervention logic) A method of determining the appropriateness of provisions where the main issue is how to achieve an outcome. The actions needed to generate outputs that in turn achieve outcomes are mapped, but in reverse order, starting with outcomes and working backwards to actions. This identifies a clearly preferred implementation path. It is most appropriate for RMA provisions, for example, provisions that require a number of actions to be coordinated; and where the emphasis is on modifying how resources are used by people and communities, for example, management of streams. This approach has a focus on effectiveness, and is less able to address efficiency, though it can do so to a degree. Most useful for RMA provisions where there are a range of RMA and non-RMA actions to coordinate. Use of diagrams and flow charts set out expected cause-effect relationships between actions and outcomes. The diagrams make assessment of efficiency and effectiveness easier for a range of participants. May highlight interconnections between different outcomes and help to highlight the range of actions (RMA and non-RMA) need to achieve an outcome. Can help generate new management options. Best used for issues where the objective is clear and agreed. Does not seek to place importance on one criteria or option over another, although as the process of mapping proceeds, key linkages become established. Doesn't generate a ‘winner’ between options. That agreement may be reached on how to manage an RMA issue if all parties feel that they have an equal share of the task ahead. Often needs an independent facilitator to help keep discussion on track and focused. Likely to involve a series of meetings and discussions based around white boards, large maps, sticky notes and the like. Needs commitment from key stakeholders to participate. An example of logic mapping (called structured decision-making or SDM) is its use in the .