Project Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes, Impact and Results

27. September 2020
Kategorien
Newsletter abonnieren

Project Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact
Many people and organizations seem to have serious trouble separating between the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact, and the results of a project. 
 
This leads to lot’s of confusion, bad communication, disappointed project teams, and disappointed stakeholders.
 
Below you will find my take on these terms and their relevance for your project.
 
Inputs
 
Inputs are very often confused to be synonymous with activities. However, these terms are not interchangeable. 
 
Inputs, in simple terms, are those things that we use in the project to implement it. 
 
For example, in any project, inputs would include things like time of internal and/or external employees, finances in the form of money, hardware and/or software, office space, and so on. 
 
Inputs ensure that it is possible to deliver the intended results of a project.
 
Activities
 
Activities on the other hand are actions associated with delivering project goals. In other words, they are what your people do in order to achieve the aims of the project. 
 
In a software development project, for example, activities would include things such as designing, building, testing, deploying, etc. And in an upskilling initiative the training of employees would be an activity.
 
Outputs
 
These are the first level of results associated with a project. Often confused with “activities”, outputs are the direct immediate term results associated with a project. 
 
In other words, they are the delivered scope. The tangible and intangible products that result from project activities. Outputs may include a new product or service, a new ERP system replacing the old one, or employees being trained as part of a digital upskilling initiative.
 
Success on this first level of results is what I call “Project Delivery Success”. It is about defining the criteria by which the process of delivering the project is successful.
 
Essentially this addresses the classic triangle «scope, time, budget». 
 
It is limited to the duration of the project and success can be measured as soon as the project is officially completed (with intermediary measures being taken of course as part of project control processes). 
It is always a combination of measurements on inputs and outputs.
 
Outcomes
 
This is the second level of results associated with a project and refers to the medium term consequences of the project. Outcomes usually relate to the project goal(s).  
 
For example, the new ERP system is used by all users in scope, uptime is 99.99%, customer satisfaction has increased by 25%, operational costs have decreased by 15%, and so on.
 
These criteria need to be measured once the product/service is implemented and over a defined period of time. This means it cannot be measured immediately at the end of the project itself.

 
Success on this second level of results is what I often refer to as “Product or Service Success”. It is about defining the criteria by which the product or service delivered is deemed successful.
 
Impact
 
This is the third level of project results, and is the long term consequence of a project.  Most often than not, it is very difficult to ascertain the exclusive impact of a project since several other projects, not similar in nature can lead to the same impact. 
 
For example, financial value contribution (increased turnover, profit, etc.) or competitive advantage (market share won, technology advantage).
 
Success on this third level of results is what I call “Business Success”. Business success is about defining the criteria by which the product or service delivered brings value to the overall organization, and how it contributes financially and/or strategically to the business.
 
Results
 
Project results are the combination of outputs (level 1), outcomes (level 2), and impact (level 3). These levels combined will determine your overall project success. You can be successful on one level but not others.
 
Project success and project failure are NOT absolutes. It may not be possible to be a little bit pregnant, but you can be a little bit successful.
 
Every project has multiple success criteria related to business results, product/service results, and project delivery results (cost, schedule, scope, and quality).
 
Some criteria are absolute, meaning they must be completed on or before the original planned date, and some are relative, meaning they must be completed by a date acceptable to the client.
 
Project success is determined by how many of your success criteria are satisfied, and how well.

In a nutshell: You need to be able to distinguish between the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and the impact of your project.

 
Tags

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. Mai 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. März 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. März 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. März 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Weiterlesen
Next