While building the impact model considering the patterns and typologies introduced in Step 2, this Tips suggests that the impact model be developed with the establishment of specific criteria. This approach is intended to ensure not only the visibility of the story but also the quantification and economic value of the model.
Assumptions for Impact Model Construction
Divide Logic Models by Domain
In some cases, the impact generated by a specific activity may span multiple domains (e.g., improving transport efficiency in rural areas can also contribute to depopulation countermeasures and reduce environmental impact). However, for the sake of practicality and to avoid inhibiting factors when conducting impact assessments and quantifications, logic models should be divided by domain.
Further Decompose Logic Models Within Domains Based on Intentions
Each domain contains several impact creations, and different impacts are emphasized based on the characteristics and issues specific to the region being targeted. Therefore, it is desirable to construct and manage them separately. For instance, even within the healthcare domain, issues related to healthcare public expenses (optimization and efficiency) and public health measures (expansion and maximization) cannot be organized under the same vector. As mentioned in Step 2, it is recommended to categorize impacts broadly into typologies like “Value Addition” (e.g., improvement in quality of life, advanced healthcare, self-realization, and enhanced social status), “Maintenance of Basic Values” (clothing, food, shelter, health, public health, infrastructure, and so on), and “Sustainability Assurance” (regional economic revitalization, optimization of healthcare public expenses, and more).
Describe Logic Models Unidirectionally
While it is true that numerous factors inherently interact with each other in a complex manner, it is often challenging from both a construction and evaluation perspective to express all relationships, including ripple effects. Therefore, for practicality, the emphasis should be placed on systematically representing the major relationships.
Configuration of Each Item in the Model
The configuration of each item in the model (Impact/Outcome/Output/Activity) is set as follows:
Impact
What you ultimately want to achieve or the problem you want to solve.
Output
Comprehensive components that make up the realization of the impact.
- If it’s easy to quantify, include the breakdown (market composition, cost structure, etc.). Ensure that no significant elements are overlooked.
- If not easily quantifiable, utilize a general framework (e.g., Value Chain, Patient Journey), ensuring that no important aspects are overlooked, particularly for highly significant themes.
- If there’s a possibility that the framework might change significantly, set it as a separate outcome to accommodate the potential changes.
Output
Apply the IWA framework, adapted to the specific purpose, as elements leading to the outcome (as explained later).
Activity
Initiatives taken by companies, business units, etc. (what was directly done).
Recommended Framework for Outputs
For outputs in the logic model, we recommend the following framework, an extension of the Impact Weighted Accounts (IWA) proposed by Harvard Business School. It is extended to accommodate the long-term nature of the logic model, as IWA itself is designed for single-year impact creation. Specifically, it allows for the separate recognition of the “duration of value” and “speed of value realization” within the outputs, as they are considered significant over a certain time frame.
Accessibility (IWA: Access)
Those that improve accessibility to problem solving and value creation (e.g., diffusion and manifestation of pre-existing added value).
Quality (IWA: Quality)
Those that bring qualitative improvement to problem solving and value creation (e.g., intrinsic added value enhancement).
Optionality (IWA: Optionality)
Those that increase the options for problem solving and value creation, resulting in an overall value enhancement.
Efficiency (IWA: Pollutants & Efficiency)
Those that exhibit high efficiency in achieving effectiveness, added value, and outcomes during the use and utilization process, with lower costs.
Sustainability (Uniquely Expanded)
Those that exhibit a longer duration of expected effects, added value, and outcomes during the use and utilization process, indicating higher sustainability.
Promptness (Uniquely Expanded)
Those that result in early manifestation of expected effects, added value, and outcomes during the use and utilization process.
Recyclability (IWA: Recyclability)
Those with significant secondary effects, added value, and high potential for reuse.
Recognition of Externalities in Activities
Qualitative Perspective
We assess whether the activities under consideration may have externalities (additionality) based on the following criteria (detailed in the organization of impact creation possibility):
- Additionality
- Continuity and sustainability
- Agency
- Uniqueness and superiority
Quantitative Perspective
In general, if the difference between the performance of the activity and the industry or market average is positive, it can be interpreted that the difference itself represents externalities (additionality).
When it comes to the average value, if data can be covered by statistically reliable sources, using that average is acceptable. However, for micro-level indicators, such comprehensive data may not be readily available. In such cases, you may consider collecting a substantial amount of industry data to calculate an average level. Nonetheless, this approach is often impractical from a real-world perspective.
Therefore, it is recommended to use the highest value (the value that leads to the maximum impact) from the information disclosed by players who provide impact assessments or similar industry-specific superiority verifications as the positive average value for practical impact assessment and impact accounting.