Quality Assurance Process
Quality Dimension 1: Logical Coherence
Test whether each element of your theory follows logically from the previous one:
Quality Dimension 2: Evidence Grounding
Verify that your theory builds on solid foundation work from Lessons 1.1-1.3:
Quality Dimension 3: Community Alignment
Ensure your theory genuinely reflects community priorities and local context:
Quality Dimension 4: Implementation Realism
Check that your theory is ambitious but achievable given real constraints:
Strong Theory Benchmark
Common Theory of Change Weaknesses
Watch for these red flags that indicate your theory needs strengthening:
❌ Weakness 1: Weak Logical Connections
Warning Signs:
- Activities don't clearly connect to intended outputs (what you do doesn't produce what you claim)
- Outputs don't logically lead to stated outcomes (having trained people doesn't automatically create behavior change)
- Outcome sequence doesn't build toward impact realistically (missing critical intermediate steps)
- Assumptions are vague or untestable ("communities will support" without specifics)
How to Fix:
Test each connection: "If we achieve X, will it logically lead to Y?" If answer isn't clearly yes, either strengthen the connection (add intermediate steps/activities) or adjust expectations to be more realistic.
❌ Weakness 2: Poor Evidence Foundation
Warning Signs:
- Theory contradicts findings from problem analysis (focusing on symptoms you identified as effects, not root causes)
- Activities ignore stakeholder insights about what works/doesn't work (community said "that approach failed before")
- Assumptions are based on hopes rather than evidence ("we hope people will participate")
- Community priorities are not reflected in outcome selection (prioritizing what funders want, not what stakeholders emphasized)
How to Fix:
Return to your foundation materials (Problem Tree, stakeholder insights, affinity themes). Ensure every theory element traces back to evidence. Document these connections explicitly.
❌ Weakness 3: Implementation Unrealism
Warning Signs:
- Scope is too ambitious for available resources and capacity (trying to address all root causes simultaneously)
- Activities are too vague to guide actual implementation ("provide training" without specifics)
- Timeline expectations are unrealistic given change complexity (expecting systemic change in 12 months)
- Input requirements exceed reasonable fundraising potential (need $5M but typical grants are $50K)
How to Fix:
Narrow scope to what you can realistically implement well. Make activities specific with clear deliverables. Align timeline with evidence about how long change takes. Budget realistically based on actual fundraising capacity.
❌ Weakness 4: Community Disconnection
Warning Signs:
- Theory reflects external priorities rather than community vision (what you think should change, not what they want)
- Activities are culturally inappropriate or contextually unrealistic (ignoring local values and social dynamics)
- Existing community assets and resources are ignored (assuming communities have no strengths to build on)
- Change pathway doesn't account for local social and political dynamics (will face resistance from power structures)
How to Fix:
Conduct community validation sessions (see Templates & Tools). Adjust theory based on stakeholder feedback. Document how community input shaped your approach. Ensure theory genuinely reflects local priorities and context.
Self-Assessment Questions
Answer these questions honestly to identify areas needing strengthening:
1. Can you trace each theory element back to specific evidence from your foundation work?
If no: Return to Problem Tree, stakeholder insights, and affinity themes. Document connections explicitly.
2. Would stakeholders recognize this theory as reflecting their priorities and vision?
If no: Conduct validation sessions. Adjust theory based on feedback. Strengthen community alignment.
3. Can you explain why each connection will work (not just hope it will)?
If no: Make assumptions explicit. Test each connection. Add intermediate steps where logic is weak.
4. Is your scope focused enough that you can implement activities well with realistic resources?
If no: Narrow scope. Focus on 2-3 root causes you can address effectively. Make activities more specific.
5. Are your outcomes achievable within stated timeframes based on evidence about change?
If no: Adjust timeline expectations. Distinguish short-term (0-12 months), medium-term (1-3 years), long-term (3-7 years) realistically.
6. Could someone use your theory to actually implement the project (specific enough)?
If no: Make activities more specific. Add details about what, who, when, where. Ensure outputs are measurable.
Next Steps
Complete your quality assessment:
- Templates & Tools - Use validation guide to test theory with stakeholders
- Real-World Examples - See quality theory in action with Nigeria Youth Livelihood