Exhibit 8.2: 6-step Approach to Outcome Harvesting
1 - Design the Outcome Harvest based on the principal uses of the primary users. Come to agreement with the people who will use the results of the Outcome Harvest on priority Outcome Harvesting questions to guide the harvest. Users and harvesters should also agree on the process: what information is to be collected, how, from whom, when, and with what resources in order to credibly answer the questions.
2 -Review documentation by identifying and formulating draft, potential outcome statements contained in secondary sources of information: reports, evaluations, press releases, and other documentation. These statements should comprise (a) changes in individuals, groups, communities, organizations, or institutions; and (b) how the intervention plausibly influenced them. They may contain other useful information such as the significance of each outcome.
3 - Engage with human sources. The harvester facilitates conversations with the people who have the most knowledge about what the intervention has achieved and how. They usually are the authors of the documentation, the intervention’s other field staff, allies, and others closest to the action. They review and fill gaps in the potential outcome statements extracted from documentation, identify and formulate additional ones, and together with the harvester agree on a set of robust outcome statements that are sufficiently precise to be verifiable.
4 - Substantiate with external sources a select number of outcome statements. Substantiators are one or more persons knowledgeable about the change but independent from the organization to ensure accuracy, or deepen understanding, or both. For example, they may be the societal actors who changed their behavior or allies who collaborated in the intervention, unless of course they already served as a primary source in the third step. This fourth step ensures that the whole set of outcome statements is sufficiently credible for the intended uses. These outcome statements are the evidence used in the next step.
5 - Analyze and interpret by first organizing outcome statements so they are manageable, for example, categorising them by evaluation question, and then using this to provide evidence-based answers to the prime evaluation questions, where the evidence is the information contained in the outcome statements generated in the previous three steps.
6 - Support use of findings after the evaluation questions are answered so the users make better use of the process and findings.
Source: Wilson-Grau, R. (2019). Outcome Harvesting: Principles, Steps, and Evaluation Applications. Information Age Publishing: 8-9.
Conclusion
Evaluations and reflections on effect analysis (and impact evaluations) have greatly changed in the last 25 years. New approaches are becoming mainstream, which allows evaluators to choose from a diversity of evaluation approaches. Nevertheless, planetary health dimensions are not systematically integrated, which is understandable but no longer acceptable. Existing methodologies and knowledge allow for the planetary health dimensions to be integrated in all studies. This new practice would increase awareness of global and local impacts. It would influence recommendations based on human and environmental impacts and encourage the implementation of mitigation measures to avoid negative intervention impacts.