A theory of change makes the proposed path to an outcome explicit. Work backward from the change you want, identify the conditions it may depend on, and ask what would have to be true for each connection to hold. That can change which activities you choose before you spend time delivering them.
This fictional library example shows two pathways, the gaps in their evidence, and the difference between improving a notice and addressing the wider participation problem.
Put the desired change at the end of the map
The intended longer-term outcome is: adults can take part in the library's ongoing workshops.
The team starts with attendance at a suitable session as an intermediate step. Working backward, it proposes that people would need to:
- Know an appropriate session exists and understand whether it fits their needs.
- Have a workable session time and access route.
- Intend to attend, with a place available when they do.
These are planning hypotheses. The map does not establish that they are sufficient, or that every potential participant faces the same barriers. Its value is that the team can inspect and question the connections instead of hiding them inside a promise to “increase engagement.”
UK Aid Connect's theory-of-change guidance describes working backward through necessary conditions, making assumptions visible, and considering multiple pathways and the evidence behind them. Its method provides a useful starting point for this exercise. Read the guidance.
Build two paths and label the evidence
The team's supplied planning packet contains just two notes:
- N1: The current invitation says “advanced tools” without explaining prerequisites.
- N2: Travel constraints have not been researched, and room capacity is unknown.
Those notes support questions. N1 does not prove that confusing wording is preventing attendance. N2 does not prove that an earlier finish would solve a travel problem.
| Proposed path | Causal assumption | What the team still needs to learn |
|---|---|---|
| Clearer program description → people understand session fit | A1: explaining prerequisites helps readers assess whether the session suits them | Can intended readers explain who the session is for after reading the revised notice? |
| Earlier finish time → a feasible journey home | A2: finishing earlier makes travel workable for people who face that constraint | What travel constraints exist, and would the proposed finish time address them? |
| Session fit plus workable access → intention to attend | People who understand the offer and can reach it may want to participate | What other reasons affect that decision? |
| Intention plus available places → attendance | People can obtain a place and follow through | What capacity and booking conditions apply? |
Leave consultation owners and responses blank until someone has actually agreed to the work or supplied an answer. A plausible sentence in a diagram is still a claim that needs examining.
Compare the proposed interventions
Proposal A: rewrite the invitation. This addresses the session-fit pathway. Even if the revision helps readers understand the workshop, the map leaves the timing and access condition unresolved.
Proposal B: revise the invitation and investigate an earlier finish. This considers both pathways. It also creates more questions: which finish time, for whom, with what consequences for the workshop? There is no travel evidence yet, so moving the session immediately would get ahead of the information available.
The useful output is a better next decision: test understanding of the description and investigate access constraints before choosing a schedule change. Neither proposal has demonstrated an attendance effect.
This is where the backward map earns its space. It reveals a condition that a notice-only activity could leave untouched. A list of completed tasks could show that the new invitation was published without exposing that gap.
Use the interactive map in a planning conversation
Choose the desired outcome to trace its proposed preconditions backward. Open the session-fit and timing paths separately to inspect each assumption, its source note, and its unanswered question.
Then compare the notice-only proposal with the broader proposal. Look for the condition each addresses and the one it leaves open. Keep observed planning notes visually distinct from causal assumptions so a reader can tell which is which without opening every detail.
Use the blank map for your own program. Add temporary discussion notes while reviewing the paths, and confirm before resetting them. The example does not calculate a success probability or prove causation from the shape of the diagram.
Copy this prompt for your own working map
Create a complete self-contained HTML theory-of-change planning map.
My program: [context]. Intended outcome: [change for whom]. Supplied
observations: [dated notes]. Proposed conditions and assumptions:
[details]. Alternative interventions: [proposals]. Keep gaps unknown.
Include a separate fictional library evening-workshop case. Outcome:
adults can take part in ongoing workshops. Work backward from actual
attendance to intention plus available places; intention depends in
this proposed map on understanding session fit AND workable access.
Path A: clearer description → understanding session fit. A1 assumes
prerequisite information helps readers assess fit. Evidence needed:
actual reader understanding. Path B: earlier finish → feasible journey
home. A2 assumes the finish time addresses relevant travel constraints;
travel data is absent. Supply only N1: invitation says “advanced tools”
without prerequisites; N2: travel constraints unresearched and room
capacity unknown. No participants, results, owners, or capacity invented.
Distinguish planning notes, causal hypotheses, and evidence gaps.
Allow backward tracing and selection of each path to inspect its
assumption, source note, and question. Compare notice-only revision
with revision plus investigation of an earlier finish; show which
conditions remain open. Neither proposal has proven effectiveness.
Provide blank-map fields, missing-outcome feedback, temporary notes
preserved across views, and confirmed reset. Do not calculate success
probability or claim the diagram proves causation.
Use labeled keyboard-accessible controls, visible focus, system fonts
at least 16px, and a 360px layout without horizontal scrolling. Put
CSS and JavaScript inline, load no dependencies, return complete HTML.
Give reviewers a specific question
Share the prepared map in NOS with the person who knows the workshop's access arrangements. Ask them to review the timing branch and identify which assumption needs checking first. Giving that reviewer a visible path, its source note, and its missing evidence makes the conversation easier to act on than sending a diagram with “any thoughts?”