This post is a response to a comment concerning outputs and outcomes features and benefits. In Monday’s post, How Do I Demonstrate Benefits? Mark Woodhead wrote:
“It seems to me that there are some interesting parallels between demonstrating benefits and demonstrating outcomes and impacts. Not quite the same, but it might be instructive to compare the two.”
This was my reply:
“Thanks Mark, there probably is a close parallel between outputs and features; outcomes and benefits. It is easy to focus solely on features or outputs; usually these are not terribly interesting. You might offer support to several hundred job seekers a year but the interest is in how their lives have changed as a result of your intervention.”
So, let’s compare these four terms:
Outputs and Outcomes
These terms are usually applied to grant applications and so they are familiar in voluntary and community organisations. Sometimes it feels as if a grant is actually purchasing outputs. So, the deal may be to help 100 people over a given period with job opportunities. Of these the expectation might be 20 to training courses, 20 to job interviews and 5 into jobs. (I’ve made up these figures, to illustrate the principle.)
The outcomes will be the stories of people who actually benefitted from the service. The incentive to go to an interview might be the need to earn more money to support their family or to have a good time. Does it matter which?
Outcomes are important because people who successfully experienced the service may have other reasons for their appreciation. Increased income is not the only motivation to work. Have people’s lives been enhanced by the work itself, apart from the money they earn? It is the study of outcomes that enables an organisation to understand what works for its customers. An over-reliance on measuring outputs will mean this valuable information is not collected or overlooked.
There is an expectation that good outputs will lead to positive outcomes although sometimes the focus is so much on achieving outputs that outcomes are forgotten. If good output records are leading to poor outcomes, the chances are you’re doing the wrong thing!
Features and Benefits
These words are usually used in a business context. Again features are usually quantifiable and there is a temptation to focus on them at the expense of benefits. However, most business people are aware of the need to focus on benefits because benefits sell.
Businesses operate in the market place and so they need real benefits. Customer satisfaction is central to a successful business. Whilst it is not hard to find businesses who promote on features, successful businesses always promote benefits.
It often feels like outputs sell grant applications and so it is interesting to see there is a different feel to these pairs.
Outputs and Features
So, what do these have in common?
They are quantifiable and so measurable. They are evidence based. If you claim an output or a feature it is not unreasonable to expect evidence for their existence.
The reason outputs are so important in grant related cultures is because very often outputs are pushed down the chain. Some government department has to meet a target of so many people on training courses and so pays a voluntary organisation to supply said training courses.
Whilst anyone would see the virtue in looking closely at outcomes, the reality is it is not necessary. Courses held and the people who participated is often all the evidence a funding body requires. Outcomes may be more important to the supplier, based in a community where the courses are happening but they still must collect outputs if they wish to maintain their funding.
Features are important once a potential customer understands benefits. The customer has already decided when they look at the features. They want the benefits and they look at features to establish whether the benefits offered are credible.
Outcomes and Benefits
These are usually qualitative measures, often best conveyed through stories. They are not so easy to measure and evidence will be anecdotal.
So, expect testimonials in the place of hard evidence. Perhaps we’re less inclined to accept this type of evidence but the reality is we do need to know whether an offer is worth it.
A problem with many offers is they do not gather the soft evidence of benefits or outcomes over a long enough period. It is not unreasonable to ask about the benefits of a training course 1 year or even 5 years after the end. How many courses do you remember 5 years or more after they took place? It is not impossible to remember courses many years after they’re completed and still draw on insights from them.
The business person cannot afford to forget about benefits. They need to gather evidence of benefits. They depend upon changes in the market. An offer that worked well six months ago may be less effective as the market moves on. Good businesses are able to manage these subtle changes. Features are easy in comparison – they’re always there and mostly unchanging. The contrast with the voluntary sector fixation on outputs could not be more stark.
Have I captured the contrasting contexts of these two sets of attributes? Please share your experiences, especially if they don’t agree with what I’ve written here.