About three months ago, I planted flower seedlings in my little garden and watched them sprout, grow, and finally bloom into beautiful flowers. Watching the flowers bloom after the cats-and-dogs rain made me reflect on the concepts of outputs, outcomes, and impacts that many of us still find confusing.
The analogy is simple. When we plant seeds or seedlings and see them take root and sprout, those are our outputs, the immediate, visible results of our effort. But when the plants finally grow and bloom into beautiful flowers, that’s the outcome, the real, meaningful impact that brings value and joy.
However, many leaders, including in higher education, often stop at celebrating “outputs,” like the sprouting seedlings, and forget to nurture and measure the “outcomes” and “impact,” the blooms.
Universities proudly count how many events they held, workshops they conducted, or MOUs they signed. While these are useful milestones, they are not the end goals.
A university can organise dozens of seminar and conferences or sign hundreds of MOUs and yet see little meaningful change in student success, research impact, or societal contribution.
This disconnect happens when we confuse outputs with outcomes and impact. To bridge this gap, academic leaders need a clear, logical framework for planning and evaluating initiatives. One useful framework is the Theory of Change (ToC).
What is Theory of Change?
Theory of Change is a way of thinking through and explaining how and why a particular program or initiative will achieve its desired results. Rather than just listing activities, ToC asks:
. What is the long-term change we want to see?
. What intermediate changes must happen first?
. What activities and resources are needed to achieve those changes?
. What assumptions are we making about how change happens?
This approach forces leaders to be intentional, realistic, and transparent about their plans.
The Building Blocks
To effectively use Theory of Change, it’s crucial to understand the difference between inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impact. The terms are often used interchangeably but mean very different things.
Inputs: The resources we invest in the programme such as money, staff time, facilities, and partnerships.
Activities: The specific actions we take using those inputs like training, events, curriculum redesign, or student counseling.
Outputs: The immediate, countable products of our activities like the number of students who attended a workshop, or the number of internships arranged.
Outcomes: The medium-term changes in knowledge, behaviour, attitudes, or conditions such as students improving their communication skills, or employers being more willing to hire graduates.
Impact: The long-term, broader change we hope to contribute to such as improved graduate employability or enhanced national innovation capacity.
Why does this distinction matter? Because counting activities or outputs alone can create a false sense of success. Like my garden, planting seeds is only the beginning. We must keep nurturing them until they bloom.
Similarly, a university career center might report that it organised 20 workshops and helped 500 students complete résumés. That’s impressive, but if graduate employment rates remain low, the programme hasn’t achieved its intended outcomes or impact.
A Case Study: Improving Graduate Employability
Let’s try to apply Theory of Change with a common challenge faced by universities: graduate employability.
The Problem:
Graduate employability (GE) of University ABC exceeds 90%, which is above the national benchmark of 85%. However, this figure reflects the broad definition used by Malaysia’s Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), which includes not only graduates employed in meaningful, well-matched jobs, but also those working in low-paid or unrelated roles, furthering their studies, or participating in upskilling programmes.
A detailed analysis by University ABC revealed that only about 50% of its graduates secured meaningful employment within six months, with jobs that were aligned to their qualifications and paid a reasonable wage. Employers also complained that graduates lacked soft skills and workplace readiness, echoing national-level findings.
This gap is not unique to University ABC. Nationally, many graduates are underemployed, occupying low- or semi-skilled roles, despite high GE rates being reported. Studies have shown that around 70% of employed graduates in Malaysia are in jobs that do not fully utilise their qualifications, and underemployment remains a persistent concern (Khazanah Research Institute, 2023).
The Long-term Impact:
University ABC defined its desired impact:
“Graduates of University ABC are highly employable and contribute productively to the economy, with a 90% employment rate within six months of graduation, in roles aligned with their qualifications and paying sustainable wages.”
Outcomes:
To reach this impact, several intermediate outcomes were identified:
. Students develop workplace-relevant technical and soft skills.
. Students gain hands-on experience through internships.
. Employers perceive graduates as job-ready.
. Career services align with industry needs and market trends.
Activities and Outputs:
With the above outcomes in mind, the university designed activities and tracked outputs:
. Run soft-skills workshops: 20 workshops conducted per semester (output: number of sessions).
. Secure internships: 300 internship placements arranged (output: number of placements).
. Offer personalised career coaching: 500 students coached annually (output: number of students).
Assumptions:
Importantly, the plan made explicit assumptions: that economic conditions remain stable; employers have vacancies in relevant fields; and students are willing to participate actively. These assumptions were monitored and tested regularly.
Why Academic Leaders Should Care
Many university leaders focus on activities and outputs because they are easy to measure and present well in reports. But outputs are not the same as outcomes or impact. Signing 50 MOUs with foreign universities sounds impressive, but if none of them leads to, for example joint research or student mobility, the initiative has no meaningful impact.
Theory of Change helps leaders avoid this trap by:
. Aligning activities with intended outcomes and impact.
. Making assumptions and risks explicit so they can be addressed.
. Providing a roadmap for monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment.
It also strengthens accountability, allowing universities to show funders, accreditation bodies, and the public that their programmes are truly making a difference.
Other Examples from Higher Education
Enhancing Research Impact:
A university’s research office wants to improve the societal relevance of research.
. Impact: University research informs policy and solves real-world problems.
. Outcomes: Researchers work on applied projects; policymakers consult university experts.
. Activities: Training on translational research, industry partnerships.
. Outputs: Number of workshops held, number of industry collaborations signed.
Improving Student Engagement:
A student affairs department aims to improve student engagement.
. Impact: Students graduate as well-rounded, socially responsible citizens.
. Outcomes: Students participate more in clubs, develop leadership and teamwork skills.
. Activities: Organise leadership camps and volunteering programmes.
. Outputs: Number of camps held, number of students participating.
Here too, outcomes, changes in behaviour and skills, are more meaningful than outputs alone.
Moving Forward
For academic leaders, embedding Theory of Change in planning and evaluation can transform how universities operate. To get started:
. Always begin with the end in mind: define your desired impact.
. Work backward to identify necessary outcomes, activities, and outputs.
. Clarify assumptions and monitor them.
. Measure what matters: don’t stop at counting outputs.
. Engage stakeholders: students, staff, employers in the design process.
Conclusion
Higher education is about more than just being busy, it’s about making a difference. Theory of Change offers universities a clear, logical framework to ensure their activities translate into meaningful impact.
By distinguishing between inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impact, academic leaders can plan better, act smarter, and deliver results that truly matter. Like in gardening, planting the seeds is just the start, it’s the blooming flowers that truly reflect your care and effort.
So next time you read a report boasting about the number of MOUs signed or workshops held, ask yourself: what has actually changed?
Because in the end, what matters most is not what we do, but what we achieve.
Prof. Azizi is a senior academic at Malaysian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship and Business (MGSEB), UMK (https://mgseb.umk.edu.my) and former university leader with experience in research policy, academic governance, and innovation strategy. He currently teaches and consults on higher education and entrepreneurship and can be contacted at [email protected].
