Standardisation : This is a recurrent theme in impact measurement . Investment professionals who come from a world of business and finance are often the people most in search of a standard way of measuring and comparing social performance , as is done with financial performance . Some respondents highlighted the need for comparability between organisations and “ simple , consistent formats for reporting trends over time against targets ”. This would enable a greater focus on longitudinal social performance analysis . However , front line organisations stressed the complexity of social issues and the need to maintain flexibility in measurement to fit to individual organisational context , goals and capacity .
“ Organisations must be allowed to develop impact measurement approaches because they see the benefit in it and in a way , appropriate to them , and not because there is a top down pressure ( from ‘ impact investors ’ or others ) to impose a measurement framework .”
This tension suggests a need to define more clearly what should be standardised – the process for measurement , the indicators , reporting , or the assessment of rigour . One solution proposed is to focus more on sector specific principles and standards that allow meaningful comparability across organisations delivering similar services . Most of the work to date on impact measurement has sought generic cross-sector approaches , but there is a lot that organisations can learn from peers in the same sector both in terms of sharing experience and in identifying common approaches , tools and indicators for measuring , managing and reporting on impact .
A sector-based approach can make sense when it is practitioner-led . In the UK , HACT has focused on developing tools that are specifically designed for housing organisations which were mentioned as straightforward and useful . Internationally , the GIIN is helping facilitate the development of more standardised , sector-based impact measurement methods and indicators in partnership with specialist sector bodies , including those in affordable housing , sustainable agriculture and clean energy .
Tyranny of data ? The tension between organisational and external stakeholder needs is highlighted by a sense from some that expectations around impact data are unrealistic . Complex measurement processes can be both a burden to frontline organisations and can mean that the quality of data reported suffers . There was a call for “ greater honesty in terms of what it is possible to measure and report on ”, and “ greater appreciation of the inherent uncertainty about benefits and the lack of transferability of findings from one context to another ”.
The concept of ‘ optimal ignorance ’ is perhaps useful here . Ultimately data should help answer the ‘ so what question ’ and provide answers that inform better decisions . Towards this end the concept of ‘ lean data ’ developed by Acumen is interesting . Designed specifically for social enterprises , Acumen engages social entrepreneurs in a conversation about what they want to know about their customers and then uses low-cost technology and
74 %
OF RESPONDENTS FELT THAT FUNDERS SHOULD FOCUS MORE ON IMPACT INFORMATION WHEN AWARDING GRANTS
methods to gather high-quality data quickly and efficiently . The data Acumen ’ s Lean Data team gathers is typically a mixture of both social performance and wider customer insights such as on consumer satisfaction , willingness to pay , and customer archetypes that help inform business decisions .
Despite SROI being the best-known impact measurement methodology , there was a plea not to bring everything back to monetary terms – a move that is particularly prevalent in the UK where charities and social enterprises are often expected to demonstrate how they deliver both value for money and savings to public expenditure . Monetising outcomes may be relevant and useful in specific circumstances but not all .
“ The continued move to monetize outcomes is a nonsense and common key impact themes are far more worthwhile .”
“ We need to focus on indicators that talk to real issues on the ground , across multiple dimensions of poverty and NOT try and bring everything back to monetary terms .”
50 | PPQ