I’ve looked over the BACKS model and I like it. However, the usage of “condition” here seems very specific to non-profit service delivery (from The Nonprofit Outcomes Toolbox, by Robert M. Penna 2011):
I chose the word “conditions” (plural) because it has a connotation that I believe encompasses not only all of BACKS’ measurs (behavior, attitude, condition, knowledge, status) but anything else going on for the person looking for an outcome.
Below is what I find in the New Oxford American Dictionary:
Note that sense 2 calls out conditions in plural: “ the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being” [emphasis mine]. Nevertheless, I view all the definitions as comprising the superset of Conditions.
When conditions are rainy, and someone is cold and wet (situation);
They want a way to get warm and dry (strategy);
So they can be safe and cozy while getting on with their day (outcome).
Strategy implementation toward this desired outcome (tactics or techniques) might include putting on foul weather gear, going inside to warm up, or sitting under an awning until the sun comes out (if it’s a summer squall). Depending on a deeper look at the situation or the desired outcome, one might decide a tactic is more desirable, feasible, or viable over the others.
However, if that person’s desired outcome (and accompanying situation) were different — “to see the great outdoors,” or perhaps, “to maintain enough manual dexterity to safely haul in a fish catch” — they would have a very different calculus of their strategy.
I still like the results I get with the definition I’ve been using: an outcome is “a change in conditions that brings value” (to whatever stakeholder you like). I’d be curious to hear if yours or Josh Seiden’s opinions have shifted.
