Flowing towards impact: The Source to Sea framework for reframing evaluation in complex systems

Introduction

Evaluating work that unfolds within complex programmes and systems, especially those involving multiple stakeholders with varying interests, and diverse contexts, inevitably involves uncertainty. Programmes are often inspired by different ideas, pursue several objectives, and are shaped by layered decision making processes. Change may occur simultaneously across different levels, or so rapidly, that it becomes difficult to see clearly what matters most. In such environments, some changes may be overlooked or given low priority, even though they may be deeply significant to stakeholders and evidence may be partial, contradictory, or hard to trace as causal pathways are rarely linear. Change may show up as shifts in behaviour, relationships, or ways of thinking rather than as easily measurable outcomes. In some cases, there may be no change at all, or change that is unintended or undesired, sometimes referred to as negative value. Mainstream approaches to evaluation have often rigidly prioritised measuring programme level impact using preconceived indicators and pathways, assumptions, and causal logic, while paying less attention to the what matters to individual projects’ participants, partners, and communities. Consequently, they may not fully engage with multiple goals operating at different levels, or with the quality of processes that connect projects, strategies, and outcomes. This can make it difficult to distinguish between direct contributions and broader, longer-term change. There are also risks in failing to carefully identify stakeholders involved in both the intervention and the evaluation. Those who have an interest in a project often also have a stake in how evaluation is conducted, how findings are interpreted, and how these findings shape future decisions. 

In an evaluation it is always the evaluator that learns the most. This is often because evaluations are not designed to accompany organisational learning. Time is not put aside for learning. If time is put aside for learning it often only happens at the executive level with the labour of monitoring and reflecting moving upwards to inform executive strategies and decisions. Project teams and/or grantees and/or people involved in projects rarely see the value of all the monitoring and learning , neither does it address their interests.

Finally, evaluations are usually conducted on a single programme or project, like research generally, this knowledge and learning remains caught in organisations like dams in a landscape. The learning does not flow to the sector or society. We are hoping to slowly, with our work, change this, and start thinking about how evaluations serve landscapes, sectors or movements rather than just the organisation or funder that has contracted the evaluation.

You may already be holding questions or concerns about some of the critiques raised above. This document actively welcomes such questioning and contributions. Below, we introduce a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework that responds to several of these issues and may also speak to questions emerging as you read. 

What we are attempting is to develop evaluation frameworks and practices that enable reflection, dialogue, and learning alongside accountability and that this reflection, dialogue and learning is directly valuable to the people doing it. Accountability, in this framing, is owed not only to funders or partners, but to the people doing the work and this includes the communities involved. 

Introducing the Source to Sea framework

The evaluation framework introduced here responds to the limits of aggregated assessment by shifting towards more contextualised, project or programme-focused evaluation. It is grounded in a process-based understanding of change, one that recognises that meaningful effects can emerge at any stage of a project or programme and that these moments of change, however partial or provisional, are worth documenting and learning from. To make this approach tangible, the framework draws on the metaphor of water flowing through a landscape. Streams may aspire to reach a river, and rivers may aspire to reach the sea. Yet not every stream or river will arrive there. This does not mean the stream has failed. Along its course, it may have provided water to people upstream, nourished vegetation, or shaped the land it passed through; these contributions matter in their own right. In much the same way, a project may not contribute to a broader programme exactly or as originally envisioned yet still make an important difference. Bringing people together to discuss shared concerns, for example, can lay the foundations for future engagement, trust-building, or collective action. Such outcomes are often invisible at programme impact level, but they are nonetheless significant and consequential.

For this reason, the framework treats Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning as a participatory and iterative process. It values learning about change as it unfolds, rather than only at the end of a project or programme. While the metaphor begins with a source, similar to a theory of change, it does not imply a top-down or linear pathway. Change can move in multiple directions, pause, accelerate, or take unexpected turns. Evaluation, therefore, can take place at any point, depending on the questions being asked. The framework is intentionally not prescriptive; instead, it offers a set of concepts and tools that support evaluators and teams to move beyond asking whether a programme worked, towards understanding how and why change occurred, what shaped it, and how different projects, contexts, and stakeholders interacted along the way.

While the framework can support reporting and accountability to external audiences, it is not designed for that purpose alone. It also represents an ethical and political commitment to reflection, responsiveness, and transformation. It recognises that knowledge is never neutral, and that how evidence is generated, interpreted, and used has real consequences.

Returning to the river metaphor, evaluation becomes a practice of learning by doing. Project teams or grantees are encouraged to reflect on their theory of change, the contexts in which they operate, organisational capacity, moments of adaptation, and both immediate outcomes and broader contributions to systemic change. Projects and programmes move through phases that call for different kinds of reflection, described in the subsequent section as the Upper Course, the Middle Course, and the Lower Course. The framework is purposefully agnostic and the first step to applying the framework is to reflect on the organisation's culture. Some organisations and/or grantees have a culture of telling stories collectively and informally, other organisations are systematised and work well with spreadsheets and forms. In some organisations, both may apply in different teams. This means adapting to suit how groups reflect and learn. Together, the framework and an agnostic approach to tools and processes, provide a rhythm for thinking, learning, and assessing contribution over time.

The Source to Sea framework in detail

The Source to Sea framework draws inspiration from both the Value Creation Framework and the Research Quality Plus (RQ+) Framework, each of which responds to the challenge of evaluating work in complex and evolving systems. The Value Creation Framework foregrounds how value is created over time through relationships, collaboration, learning, and participation, encouraging evaluators to look beyond immediate outputs and outcomes. The RQ+ Framework, meanwhile, emphasises rigour while recognising that research quality is inseparable from context, relevance, legitimacy, and contribution to change, particularly in settings marked by uncertainty and power imbalances. 

The Source to Sea framework visualises a programme as a river catchment. Individual projects or grants are tributary streams feeding into a larger river, which represents the programme as a whole. The river ultimately flows into the sea, symbolising society and the broader system within which change is sought. Just as river catchments differ depending on terrain, climate, soil, and water sources, programmes differ according to context, history, and purpose among many other aspects. Rivers also carry different meanings across cultures and belief systems, often associated with life, continuity, and transformation. While shared beliefs may guide collective practice in some traditions, this framework recognises that even within a single programme there may be multiple ways of working, knowing, and valuing change. Like tributaries in a catchment, projects may emerge from different sources and follow different paths. They may move at different speeds, encounter different obstacles, and undergo distinct transformations, yet they are connected by a shared orientation toward contributing to something larger than themselves.

As water flows, it is shaped by both internal and external influences. Certain features help sustain a healthy river system. Drawing on these features, the Source to Sea framework provides a structured metaphor for planning, monitoring, evaluation, learning, and adaptation using the river course.

The upper course

Every river begins in its upper course. This is where water gathers at its source and begins to move downhill, often quickly and unpredictably, as it finds its way through the landscape. Similarly, projects often begin with exploration, seeking to understand context, clarify intentions, and chart a possible path forward. At this stage, evaluation focuses on developing or refining a theory of change, understanding context, and assessing organisational capacity.

Source

The source represents the foundational ideas about how change is expected to happen. These ideas are shaped by an understanding of context and by the broader purpose guiding the work. Making assumptions explicit at this stage supports clarity, planning, communication, and future learning.

Catchment

The catchment shapes how a river flows and what it carries. In the same way, political, social, economic, and cultural contexts influence what is possible within a project. Projects may also seek to influence context, for example by shifting discourse or policy. Understanding this relationship deepens insight into how and why change occurs.

The middle course

As a river reaches more level ground, it slows down, gathers water from other streams, and begins to meander. This is a time for reflection. Projects in their middle course benefit from pausing to ask what is working, for whom, and under what conditions.

Riverbed

The riverbed shapes the flow of water. Organisational capacity similarly shapes how a project unfolds. Evaluating capacity helps teams understand whether strategies are feasible, inclusive, and well supported.

Meanders and Oxbows

Meanders represent adaptation, how projects respond to obstacles and opportunities. Oxbows remind us that pathways that are abandoned or redirected can still hold value. Learning from unexpected outcomes, stalled initiatives, or pilot efforts is an essential part of understanding change.

The lower course

In its lower course, a river becomes wide and slow, carrying the waters it has gathered along its journey as it approaches the sea. This stage represents a moment to assess a project’s contribution, both in terms of intended outcomes and broader systemic impact, and to use these insights to guide the programme’s next cycle, much like evaporation begins a new rainfall, sustaining the river’s flow over time.

Delta

Deltas are rich, branching spaces where multiple outcomes emerge. Evaluation here looks for different kinds of value created by the project, how they came about, and who benefited.

River mouth

The river mouth is where a project’s contribution meets the wider system. Reflection at this stage considers how learning, relationships, and outcomes do or do not contribute to longer-term change, and how they inform future strategies. Just as a river may carry a clean or a polluted load into the ocean, projects shape the systems they enter in different ways.

Insights from this stage are critical for strategic planning, particularly as a programme or project begins to consider the direction it will take in the next cycle. And, just as rivers shift their course across seasons, programmes too must adapt in response to changing conditions.

Closing reflection

The Source to Sea framework can be used across different cycles, within programmes, by donor organisations or philanthropies and project lifespans, on an annual basis, and across longer strategic periods. At each level, it provides a shared language and structure for reflection, learning, and decision making. The flexibility of the framework makes it particularly suited to times of uncertainty. Even when projects end earlier than planned, the framework supports understanding what was contributed, what was learned, and how this knowledge can inform future work.

At its heart, this framework is an invitation to slow down, pay attention, and care about how change happens. It encourages curiosity rather than certainty, learning rather than judgement, and responsibility rather than control. Used in this spirit, it becomes not just a way of evaluating work, but a companion for planning and navigating complexity with humility, care, and purpose.