Rick Davies and Jess Dart. 2005. “ The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique.”

Funded by CARE, Oxfam Australia, Oxfam New Zealand, Ibis, Lutheran World Relief. 

The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) approach to assessment encourages a participatory methodology for M&E, which relies on a stakeholder analysis of the most important changes occurring on the ground due to a program intervention. There are no predefined outcomes that must be measured or changes expected in order to demonstrate impact. Instead staff or stakeholders in the field gather significant change (SC) stories. The focus is mainly on intermediate impacts and outcomes, not activities and strategies.

The aim in gathering SC stories is to highlight who did what, when and why, detailing why the event was important. Once these stories are gathered they are sent to staff and stakeholders, who systematically discuss the project impact and regularly discuss the value of any shifts in behavior or norms reported through stories. Ideally, teams meet regularly to discuss program impact as revealed through personal stories.

Unique Application of MSC Technique: Breakthrough Trust is using Video Documentaries to detail stories of change and have found this to be a very powerful way of sharing grassroots’ narratives of change. See http://bellbajao.org/leadership/description/

Strengths:

• SC stories capture unforeseen or unexpected program outcomes, which can be beneficial in understanding broader program impacts.
• The MSC technique engages people in the field and stakeholders closest to the program, so a relevant assessment of outcomes is likely. 
• This is a creative and efficient way of gathering information on program outcomes regardless of the stability or turmoil in the organizational or socio-political context.
• The MSC technique can be used as a supplement to a more in-depth evaluation. SC stories can add valuable and rich personal narratives of the diverse changes stimulated by the program.

Weaknesses (or not designed for):

• The assessment method often relies on experts (staff) transmitting SC stories on the ground and not grassroots’ selection of their most significant change stories.
• Outcomes that are recorded through SC stories may be positively biased. The system may not account for failed changes, which ultimately provide critical information needed for program improvement.
• There is a false assumption that this method can be used for evaluation purposes. However, since systematic data on impact and outcomes are not gathered, overall understanding of if, why, and how the program works is not possible. Rather, we can only answer the question why, in specific circumstances with specific individuals or groups, the program works. 
• There is no way to measure how the program stacks up against intended and actual outcome targets, thus limiting its evaluation and monitoring uses. There is no way to link program activities to interim outcomes, which decreases the learning capabilities of the evaluation. 
• There is no systematic way of assessing how or why a programs works, restricting potential for transparency and accountability. The strengths and weaknesses of implementation remain hidden.