.png)
Impact measurement is a vital tool for organisations committed to making a real difference in society. It allows them to track the effectiveness of their interventions, demonstrate social and economic value, and learn from their experiences. However, as powerful as impact measurement can be, it’s also prone to certain pitfalls that can skew results or limit the value of the data collected.
In this article, we explore the most common mistakes organisations make when measuring their impact and offer practical solutions for how to avoid them.
One of the most frequent errors in impact measurement is confusing outputs with outcomes. Outputs refer to the immediate results of an activity (e.g. participants learning new skills or participating in activities), while outcomes measure the change these activities create (e.g. improved mental health or increased employment).
Pitfall: Organisations often track outputs because they are easier to measure. However, this approach overlooks the deeper impact their initiatives are intended to achieve.
Solution: Shift your focus to outcomes by establishing clear, measurable indicators of change before the intervention begins. For example, instead of simply counting how many people attended a training program, track whether participants show higher job placement rates.
At Impactly, we always suggest making a measurable Theory of Change and beginning with the desired outcomes, then outputs, activities and input. This will highlight what is most important to measure, while enabling you to better evaluate whether or not your outcomes are likely to be realised, if the outputs are achieved, the activities work, and the input is sufficient.
Read about setting up a measurable Theory of Change
Another common pitfall is either overloading the impact measurement process with too many indicators or failing to gather enough data to draw meaningful conclusions. Too much data can make the process overly complex and time-consuming, while too little data can obscure important insights.
Pitfall: Collecting an excessive number of data points can overwhelm your team, dilute focus on the most critical metrics and complicate continuous impact management. On the flip side, minimal data collection could lead to you missing key insights that could help improve your initiative and minimize your ability to document the social impact and value of your intervention.
Solution: Focus on quality over quantity. It's better to measure a little accurately than a lot inaccurately. Prioritise the most relevant and impactful metrics tied to your organisational goals. For instance, if you are measuring the impact of a mental health program, select a small set of relevant wellbeing metrics for your participants like reduced anxiety and loneliness levels and increased life satisfaction, rather than 10 different wellbeing metrics.
Read more about measuring what matters
Using impact measurement should not entail only focusing on data, without engaging with those directly affected by the intervention. Stakeholder input – whether from participants, beneficiaries, employees, volunteers or funders – is crucial for ensuring that the measurement reflects the lived experiences of those impacted.
Pitfall: Ignoring stakeholder feedback can result in a one-sided evaluation that overlooks important nuances, such as how participants feel about the intervention and how well it aligns with their needs.
Solution: Build stakeholder engagement into your measurement process. Share your results continuously to get input, or get qualitative feedback from important stakeholders, which can provide context for your quantitative data. Including the perspectives of those you’re serving will ensure that the data reflects a holistic understanding of the intervention’s impact.
Read about how impact data can support qualitative impact analysis
A major challenge in impact measurement is failing to contextualise your results within broader industry or societal standards. Without benchmarking, it’s difficult to assess whether your intervention is truly effective, as there’s no external comparison to guide you.
Pitfall: Without benchmarking, organisations may wrongly assume their interventions are successful or impactful without evidence to support these claims.
Solution: Incorporate benchmarking into your impact evaluation by comparing your outcomes to similar programs or industry standards. Using tools like Social Return on Investment (SROI) or WELLBYs can help provide a clear framework for this comparison. SROI allows you to measure and showcase the economic and social value created by your interventions, while WELLBYs offer insight into how changes in life satisfaction compare across different types of interventions and social changes (reduced loneliness, increased self-esteem etc.). It's also a good idea to search for similar program evaluations to benchmark your impact with peers.
Read about Impact benchmarking
Another common mistake is treating impact measurement as a standalone exercise rather than a tool for achieving your organisation’s broader goals. Impact data should inform strategic decisions and help your organisation stay aligned with its mission.
Pitfall: Measuring impact in isolation, without linking it to your organisational objectives, can lead to wasted resources and a failure to highlight the importance of your work and drive meaningful change.
Solution: Ensure that your impact metrics are closely aligned with your organisation’s goals. For example, if your mission is to reduce homelessness, your impact metrics should include not only immediate housing outcomes but also longer-term indicators like job retention and well-being improvements. Regularly review the data to assess whether your interventions are contributing to the larger organisational mission and if the impact measurements also works to highlight the broader impact of your organisation, and adjust strategies accordingly.
.png){kind=icon}
