Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System

This guidance paper, published by FSD Africa in January 2016, details 'Stage 3' of the Impact-Oriented Measurement (IOM) system. It focuses on 'Step 7: Developing a credible narrative,' providing a framework for Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) programmes to synthesize evidence, test their Theory of Change (ToC), and articulate their contribution to systemic financial sector changes and poverty reduction.

• The primary objective of Stage 3 is to synthesize bottom-up and top-down evidence to create a narrative that would 'convince a reasonable but sceptical observer' regarding an FSD's contribution to specific changes, such as increased access to financial services.
• Contribution analysis is recommended as a method for testing the Theory of Change (ToC) to evaluate overall programme impact. This process must actively mitigate 'self-attribution bias'—the tendency to focus only on evidence that confirms anticipated causal mechanisms—by systematically searching for alternative explanations and documenting non-FSD contributions.
• A robust contribution narrative is built on 'contribution claims,' which consist of change statements and causal claims backed by evidence. A claim confirms the logic model if the intended change occurred and the FSD's contribution is 'highly ranked in comparison with other contributing factors.'
• Triangulation is a core principle for testing the logic of the ToC. The document suggests using multiple evidence sources, such as results chain monitoring, market actor interviews, landscape studies, and global or FSD-led research, to validate the strength of evidence for both observed changes and causality.
• When aggregating quantifiable results (e.g., number of accounts added), FSDs must manage risks like double counting. The document notes three common quantification approaches: claiming 100% of partner results, claiming a percentage based on the proportion of funding (e.g., 20% funding equals 20% of results), or making an estimate based on the 'criticality of the input.'
• Value for Money (VfM) assessments for FSDs typically evaluate economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. The document describes two approaches to monetising benefits: measuring a set of quantifiable projects or taking a sectoral perspective to assess how sector trends provide monetary benefits, then determining the FSD's proportional contribution to those benefits.

APA

FSD Africa (2016). Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-6.sv_.pdf

Chicago

FSD Africa. Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. 2016. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-6.sv_.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=FSD Africa |title=Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System |date=January 2016 |url=https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-6.sv_.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{fsdafrica2016developing, author = {{FSD Africa}}, title = {{Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System}}, institution = {FSD Africa}, year = {2016}, month = jan, url = {https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-6.sv_.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }