Refinement of Outcome definition
“An outcome represents an end result” [6.3.2] It is my experience that the business uses the term ‘outcome’ to indicate an effect or a consequence of an end result rather than the end result itself, which is often termed an ‘output’, or a ‘goal’. For example:
- Improved CRM system: output (result of a project)
- Better Customer insights: outcome (relevant to a programme) Positive outcomes are what the business seeks from its outputs. However, as the Spec narrative recognises, outcomes could be negative and different for each Stakeholder, although Example 19 doesn’t demonstrate this at all.
Hence a more accurate expression for Outcome would be along the lines: “An outcome represents the effect or consequence of a certain state of affairs, as perceived by a Stakeholder”.
On the whole this would mean reversing the roles of Goal and Outcome. Outcome is often used as a surrogate for a sub-goal, a SMART ‘objective’. But this isn’t necessary – a (lower level) Goal can influence a (higher level) Goal. All the Outcomes in Example 19 are really sub-goals.
So the modelling approach in general would be that reaching a Goal, or sub-Goal, would have certain Outcomes, positive and negative and stakeholder based.
If we wanted to ‘harden’ these relationships, we could allow a Goal to realise an Outcome, which it can’t do currently.