Why So Many Projects Struggle With Outcomes – And How Qualitative Indicators Can Fix It
After evaluating a significant number of projects across sectors and regions, I can say this with confidence:
One of the biggest and most consistent weaknesses lies in how outcomes are framed.
Teams spend weeks drafting logframes, results frameworks, and theories of change, yet miss the single most important question:
- What is the change this project should bring?
- Not the activity.
- Not the output.
- Not the donor’s preferred wording.
- The change.
If you cannot visualise the end state of your target group, who they become, what shifts for them, what improves in their reality, you should not be designing a project in the first place.
And yet, this is where many designs fall short.
Project designers often feel pressured to reframe donor outcomes instead of asking: How does this apply to my context, my stakeholders, my problem, my country?
This leads to outcomes that are vague, donor-led, or disconnected from lived experience.
The Consequence? Poor Indicators.
When outcomes are weak, indicators follow the same path.
Most teams default to quantitative indicators simply because they align with donor reporting requirements.
But numbers alone rarely capture behavioural change, empowerment, institutional strengthening, or shifts in practice, the very essence of most development outcomes.
A Simple Fix: Include Qualitative Outcome Indicators
The next time you design a project, intentionally add qualitative outcome indicators
These indicators force you to engage more deeply with your stakeholders, collect richer evidence, and reflect more intentionally on what is actually changing.
And this has a powerful side effect:
- Better learning.
- Better adaptation.
- Better projects.
If you get the outcome right, everything else becomes clearer – the indicators, the activities, the monitoring, and ultimately, the impact.
Prof. Aurelian MBZIBAIN Founder & Director Ace D&H Consultants Ltd