This multi-stage case study explores applying the strategy mapping methodology, delivered through a software tool, to carry out a participatory evaluation of crisis management efforts in a healthcare context. The evaluation used a four-step workshop series with 15 healthcare professionals that produced ten participant-developed recommendations addressing risks identified via the mapping software. Follow-up semi-structured interviews with ten participants about one year later assessed perceived usefulness and impact. The study reports that the approach was perceived as impactful and discusses opportunities to improve clarity and actionability of recommendations and to retain useful mapping features in future participatory evaluations.
Evaluations of crisis management efforts—such as exercises and real responses—are often criticized for limited practical impact and for rarely producing novel, implementable insights for strengthening preparedness. Explanations in related literature point to how evaluations are conducted and how results are presented, and to a relative neglect of evaluation impact in the research field. Because evaluations have potential to inform learning and preparedness, methods that emphasize impact and stakeholder involvement deserve further study.
Previous work suggests that stakeholder involvement can increase the direct impact of evaluations. The participatory evaluation approach centers on active involvement of relevant stakeholders but does not mandate specific techniques for engagement. Methods from adjacent fields that emphasize stakeholder contribution can therefore inform participatory evaluation design in crisis management.
One method from public management and operations research is strategy mapping, originally developed to support organizational strategy development by eliciting stakeholders’ knowledge to define objectives and actionable strategies. Strategy mapping features strong stakeholder involvement and has produced actionable strategies in other domains. The method has also been applied in complex and crisis-like contexts outside of evaluation, suggesting cultural suitability for crisis-related participatory work.
Mapping methodologies have been recommended for participatory evaluation more broadly. The particular implementation in this study prioritizes the mapping procedure and generating actionable recommendations from participant experience, as distinct from methods that primarily aim to trace program impacts.
The case study employed a software implementation of the strategy mapping methodology to run a participatory evaluation. The evaluation comprised a four-step workshop series attended by 15 healthcare professionals from the organization being evaluated. During the workshops participants used the software to identify principal risks, map causal and strategic relationships, and develop a set of recommendations targeted at the identified risks.
Approximately one year after the workshop series concluded, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with ten of the original workshop participants to evaluate how the recommendations and the evaluation process had been used and perceived over time. The analytic dataset, including coding frameworks and interview excerpts, is deposited in Zenodo with restricted access consistent with participant confidentiality; access can be requested from the authors according to the conditions reported in the source.
(Note: the source material provided to this rewrite was truncated before the full Methods section ended; specific procedural details, workshop schedules, software name and configuration, participant demographics, and precise interview protocols were not reported in the excerpt available.)
Workshop participants produced ten recommendations addressing central risks identified using the strategy mapping software. Follow-up interviews indicated that participants perceived the evaluation and its outputs as having impact in the organization. Participants highlighted aspects of the mapping methodology they found valuable; in particular, the process of rating recommendations was seen as useful for prioritization and buy-in.
The interviews also revealed perceptions that some recommendations lacked sufficient clarity or actionability, suggesting that the evaluator’s role in shaping final recommendations could be increased to improve implementation potential. The study reports these findings as evidence that the strategy mapping approach can yield both actionable outputs and stakeholder engagement, but that refinement of certain procedural elements could enhance downstream use.
The findings support the feasibility and perceived value of using software-supported strategy mapping as a participatory evaluation method for crisis management efforts in healthcare. The study situates its contribution amid calls for longitudinal case studies that examine participatory evaluation applications and their consequences over time, and it highlights that mapping methodologies can be adaptable to complex, crisis-related domains.
Key practical implications include:
Retain participant-centered elements such as recommendation rating to promote prioritization and ownership.
Consider increasing evaluator involvement in finalizing recommendations to ensure clarity and facilitate implementation.
Even when full strategy mapping is not feasible, incorporate mapping-derived features that proved valuable.
The study also acknowledges organizational proximity between some authors and the evaluated unit; this relationship and funding sources are transparently reported in the source.
Applying the strategy mapping methodology through a software tool produced a participatory evaluation perceived as impactful by participants and resulting in actionable recommendations. The study concludes that strategy mapping is a viable approach for participatory evaluations of crisis management efforts, while also noting opportunities to improve recommendation clarity and evaluator facilitation to strengthen implementation. The authors recommend preserving effective mapping elements in future participatory evaluations, even where complete adoption of the methodology is not possible.
The analytical dataset for the study is deposited in Zenodo with restricted access to protect participant confidentiality; access can be requested from the Linköping University repository as described in the source. Funding was provided in part by the Research Council of Norway (project SPRM) and Region Östergötland; funders did not influence study design, data collection, analysis, publication decisions, or manuscript preparation. Several authors are employed within the same regional public healthcare organization as the evaluated unit; this competing interest is disclosed in the source.
(Note: The source material used for this rewritten article was truncated in the provided excerpt and omitted some procedural specifics and numeric detail. Those details were not reported in the available text.)