Orientation Lens: Start with Purpose
Get grounded during design, early planning, or proposal development
The Orientation Lens helps Systems MEL practitioners clarify long-term direction, define system focus, and understand their role within it. It’s especially useful in early stages—when setting a shared vision, boundaries, and direction matters most.
You’ll work with foundational lenses like Strategic Intent, System Boundaries, Spheres of Control, Influence, and Interest, and Domains of Change—each helping to ground your MEL practice in context, direction, and possibility.
01
The Strategic Intent
Defining a Strategic Intent
Your Strategic Intent is a shared long-term vision that reflects the systems change you want to help bring about. It provides clarity of direction, especially when working in complex, evolving systems. It’s not a fixed destination, but a shared directional anchor—helping you stay aligned with your deeper purpose as you learn, adapt, and navigate complexity.
Photo: UNDP Guatemala
Why the Strategic Intent Matters in Food Systems
In food systems—where complexity, inequality, and ecological limits converge—a Strategic Intent serves as a strategic compass that grounds your work in long-term, system-level vision, even as conditions evolve.
Food systems are inherently multifunctional and contested. They serve multiple purposes, including:
Produce enough food.
Sustain ecosystems and biodiversity.
Support rural livelihoods.
Improve nutrition and health outcomes.
…all while managing trade-offs, navigating power dynamics, and responding to climate, economic, and political shocks.
In this context, a well-articulated Strategic Intent helps systems MEL by:
Encouraging alignment across fragmented sectors and institutional silos.
Reflecting diverse values and perspectives—ideally co-created through bottom-up processes so it does not reinforce only dominant interests.
Grounding action in local realities and lived experience.
Supporting adaptive learning in contexts where surface dynamics can shift rapidly, but deeper structures are slow to change—the Strategic Intent provides a steady point of reference while strategies evolve.
Without a clear Strategic Intent, MEL often falls into the trap of simply managing outputs, tracking unconnected activities, or responding to donor demands—instead of fostering learning that leads to meaningful, system-wide transformation.
When and How to Use the Strategic Intent
Use your Strategic Intent early—during project or program design—to anchor your MEL in long-term transformation. If time is limited, start with a light version and revisit it during implementation to deepen alignment and purpose.
How the Strategic Intent adds value to Traditional MEL Approaches?
Project Objective1 vs. Strategic Intent (Systems MEL):
Aspect
Project Objective
Strategic Intent (Systems MEL)
Purpose
Describes intended objectivet—often predefined.
Anchors long-term vision in system change, guiding adaptive learning.
Time Horizon
Tied to project lifecycle.
Long-term or open-ended; provides stable direction through change.
Whose Perspectives Shape It?
Often shaped by funders or project designers.
Co-created with diverse actors—reflects lived experience, multiple priorities.
Scope of Change
Typically focuses on sectoral or thematic results.
Holistic—considers interdependencies (e.g., equity, ecology, livelihoods).
Use Over Time
Guides planning (e.g. development of indicators and targets), proposal writing, or reporting.
Serves as a living compass—used in reflection (e.g. formulating Learning questions), alignment, adaptation, monitoring (e.g. what kinds of change to track).
1Terminology varies across donors and spaces: “Project Objective” may also appear as a “Goal” or “Impact.” In this guidance, Project Objective refers to the highest-order commitment of a project.
Note on Scope
The project objective defines what a project is responsible for achieving within its lifetime. The Strategic Intent goes further: it describes the long-term transformation that gives the project meaning. A project is not measured against the Strategic Intent. Instead, the task is to define and learn from the project’s contribution to it—clarifying where the initiative makes a difference, without taking on the whole vision.
For practitioners used to traditional MEL language (goals, objectives, impact), this distinction matters: a Strategic Intent orients learning and adaptation over time by integrating values, complexity, and diverse perspectives.
Common Pitfalls Without a Strategic Intent
Without a guiding purpose, MEL can slip into:
Short-term focus
Chasing immediate outputs instead of long-term impact.
Disconnected efforts
Losing sight of how individual activities fit into the broader system.
Conflicting priorities
Stakeholders operating with different agendas.
Top-down bias
Dominant actors set the tone, sidelining local voices.
in action:
Project Objective vs. Strategic Intent Statement
A Strategic Intent Kit for Systems MEL: Bringing It All Together
More:
How to Formulate a Strategic Intent
Applying the Strategic Intent in MEL Practice
How Different Actors Can Use the Strategic Intent
deeper learning:
How the Strategic Intent Keeps Initiatives Grounded in Food Systems Transformation
Linked Content
How-to-Sheet: Defining Your Strategic Intent
02
System Boundaries
Defining System Boundaries
Boundaries help define what’s in your focus—and what’s not. They clarify where to concentrate your efforts, what to track, and where you hope to make change.
Boundaries can cover different scopes—for example, a single sector like food production or something broader like a regional food system. Importantly, they are more than geographic lines: boundaries can also be drawn around actors, institutions, relationships, or time horizons.
Setting boundaries helps you:
Clarify the scope of your MEL and intervention.
Prioritize what matters most for learning and decision-making.
Stay realistic about what your team can engage with.
Reflect on whose perspectives and priorities shape the boundaries.
Why Boundaries Matter in Food Systems
Photo: UNDP Peru
In food systems—where actors, agendas, and ecological processes intersect across scales—defining clear system boundaries is one of the most powerful (and political) decisions you can make. A well-considered boundary doesn’t just determine your focus; it shapes how you see the system, whose voices are included, and what kinds of change become visible.
Food systems consist of overlapping and interacting subsystems—ecosystems, farming systems, supply chains, marketing networks, nutrition environments—that continuously influence one another. These are embedded in one another, shaped by global drivers but experienced locally.
Boundaries help concentrate effort within this complexity. They define where to focus, what to track, and what to intentionally leave outside.
There are two levels of boundaries to consider:
Broader boundary
The larger landscape your initiative is part of—regional markets, global commodity chains, national policies, or climate frameworks. These are beyond your control but shape your environment.
Core boundary
The specific arena where your initiative engages and seeks to influence change—actors, interactions, and feedback loops within its programmatic reach.
When and How to Use System Boundaries
Define boundaries during structured design or proposal development to clarify your system focus. If your project has a short design timeline, sketch initial boundaries early and refine them as implementation unfolds and the system comes into clearer view.
Beyond Assumptions
Boundary decisions help situate your initiative and identify which outer layers to track. In traditional MEL, these layers often sit as assumptions and aren’t monitored. By making them part of your boundaries, you can track signals, patterns, and dynamics that shape your work.
Common Pitfalls When Boundaries Aren’t Set
Trying to monitor or control the entire food system—exceeding your capacity.
Oversimplifying by ignoring key external drivers.
Assuming stakeholders understand your focus—leading to misalignment.
Setting boundaries that mirror existing power dynamics instead of promoting inclusion.
Boundaries ≠ Walls
Boundaries are not fences. They help manage complexity, focus learning, and remain accountable as systems evolve.
in action:
Setting Boundaries in Food Systems
More:
How to Define System Boundaries
Using Boundaries in MEL
deeper learning:
Why Boundary Decisions Matter in Food Systems
03
Spheres of Control, Influence, and Interest
Defining the Spheres of Control, Influence, and Interest
In complex food systems, not everything is within your grasp—but it all matters. These spheres help map your initiative’s agency and accountability:
Control
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Influence
Indirect shaping—where the initiative encourages, nudges, or co-creates change with others, such as promoting regenerative practices or galvanizing local policy dialogues.
Interest
Broader outcomes the initiative cares about and tracks, even though it cannot steer them directly—like shifts in national markets, ecosystem health, or food equity that still affect its work.
This framework helps position the initiative realistically: clarifying what it directly does, where it enables change, and what it must monitor and learn from.
Why Spheres Matter in Food Systems
Food systems are dynamic and interdependent—shaped by climate, culture, markets, institutions, and power. Interventions rarely follow a straight path. The Spheres of Control, Influence, and Interest help teams stay grounded by clarifying what’s in your hands, what you can shape, and what you need to observe and learn from.
Avoid overreaching
Clarifying your Sphere of Control helps set realistic expectations. For example, you might deliver agroecological training and seeds—but can’t guarantee market access or income gains. Those belong in your Sphere of Interest.
Focus effort where it matters
The specific arena where your initiative engages and seeks to influence change—actors, interactions, and feedback loops within its programmatic reach.
Focus on contribution, not attribution
The specific arena where your initiative engages and seeks to influence change—actors, interactions, and feedback loops within its programmatic reach.
Guide learning and adaptation
The specific arena where your initiative engages and seeks to influence change—actors, interactions, and feedback loops within its programmatic reach.
In short: you don’t need to change everything to contribute meaningfully—but you do need clarity on where you act, where you influence, and where you learn.
When and How to Use Spheres
Map your spheres during project or program design or MEL planning to clarify your role and contribution. Revisit them regularly—especially as new actors emerge, influence grows, or external dynamics shift—to keep your MEL system grounded and adaptive.
How Spheres Add Value to Traditional MEL Approaches
Traditional MEL tools like logframes or linear Theories of Change (ToCs) tend to organize change around a predictable sequence: activities lead to outputs, which lead to outcomes and eventually impact. These models are built on the assumption that if you do X, then Y will follow. They aim to attribute specific results to project activities.
A spheres-based approach, by contrast, recognizes that change in complex systems like food often unfolds in unpredictable ways. Instead of tracing linear pathways, it asks: where do we have direct control, where can we meaningfully influence, and what broader dynamics should we learn from—even if we can’t change them directly?
Traditional MEL vs. Spheres-Based Systems MEL:
Aspect
Traditional MEL (Logframe / Linear ToC)
Spheres of Control, Influence & Interest
Logic of Change
Follows a linear “if X → Y” sequence.
Embraces complexity and emergence—focuses on contribution, not just attribution.
Planning Scope
Presumes impact flows directly from planned activities.
Guides strategy by clarifying what your initiative can control, influence, or only observe.
Attribution vs Contribution
Tracks attribution to specific activities.
Maps contribution pathways: how your actions ripple through influence and interest spheres to support systemic change.
Role of Context
Treats context as static assumptions or risks.
Treats context as dynamic—spheres outline where assumptions apply and where MEL must adapt to shifting situations.
Accountability Model
Focuses on delivering planned outputs.
Emphasizes adaptive learning, relevance, and responsiveness to evolving conditions.
in action:
Peru’s Coffee Sector — Navigating Control, Influence & Interest
More:
How to Define Your Spheres of Control, Influence & Interest
Sketching Initial Indicators Across Spheres (Optional)
deeper learning:
How Do Spheres Relate to Theories of Change?
04
Domains of Change
Defining the Domains of Change
Domains of Change (DoCs) are six interconnected areas that help explain where and how transformation unfolds in complex systems—in this case, food systems. They provide a structured way to engage with complexity, moving beyond outputs to track the deeper shifts that shape long-term change.
Rather than focusing narrowly on one intervention (e.g., behavior change or inputs), DoCs encourage a more systemic approach—where efforts across multiple, interdependent areas reinforce lasting progress.
The six domains of change, applied through a food systems lens, highlight what to watch for:
Mindsets
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Behaviors
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Relationships
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Institutions
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Resource Flows
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
Power Dynamics
Direct actions—what the initiative manages or delivers, such as running training, distributing seeds, or implementing a program.
DoCs help initiatives focus on transformation, not just results. They offer a structured way to engage with complexity, supporting more intentional action and learning. Specifically, they help teams:
Target interventions on the parts of the system they can meaningfully influence—such as behaviors, norms, power dynamics, or decision-making structures.
Detect and interpret signs of deeper change, including shifting narratives, new forms of collaboration, or institutional realignments that may not show up in conventional metrics.
Make sense of emergent, nonlinear change by surfacing insights across multiple domains—helping teams learn in real time and adapt course based on how the system is actually evolving.
Frame design and learning processes, shaping reflection moments, learning questions, and indicators.
Why Domains of Change Matter in Food Systems
Food systems are deeply interconnected and shaped by many forces—from ecological limits and market incentives to cultural values and policy decisions. No single cause drives issues like land degradation, food insecurity, or exclusion from markets. These emerge from interwoven dynamics—and require responses that reflect that complexity.
That’s where DoCs come in. As a core tool in systems MEL, they help practitioners see beyond single-issue fixes and recognize the multiple conditions that need to shift for change to last.
In food systems, this lens is especially valuable. For example, an initiative might promote agroforestry practices through farmer training (behavior). But without secure land rights (institutions), or equitable access to seedlings and knowledge (resource flows), the effort may not take root.
By making such interdependencies visible, DoCs allow teams to design better interventions and learn smarter from what unfolds—connecting immediate actions to the broader patterns that drive long-term transformation.
When and How to Use Domains of Change
DoCs support both Orientation (design and early planning) and the Spiral (implementation and learning).
In design, they help teams focus on where and how they aim to influence systemic change.
In implementation, they act as lenses for observing how change is actually unfolding—beyond outputs or traditional metrics.
Traditional MEL Approaches vs. Domains of Change
While traditional MEL tracks progress against fixed results, Domains of Change (DoCs) offer a more adaptive way of understanding transformation — one that reflects the complexity, interdependence, and learning dynamics of real systems.
Traditional MEL Approaches
Domains of Change (DoCs)
Focus on thematic areas or components (e.g., training, access to inputs, market linkages).
Focus on systemic transformation, expanding beyond program targets to structural shifts in the system.
Track predefined outcomes and intermediate results (e.g., productivity, market access).
Surface interdependent dynamics, showing how change in one area (e.g., behavior) interacts with others (e.g., power, institutions).
Use linear result chains or logframes to map progress from inputs → outputs → outcomes.
Encourage richer learning, capturing stories, signals, and patterns that reveal how transformation unfolds.
Assume predictability (“if we do X, then Y will happen”).
Embrace adaptation and emergence, emphasizing learning contributions over proving isolated impact.
How They’re Similar:
Both help structure MEL efforts around intended areas of change.
Both can guide teams in identifying what to observe, assess, and reflect on.
What’s Different:
Traditional outcomes are often predefined, project-bounded, and linear.
DoCs are adaptive lenses—flexible ways of seeing that help teams explore complexity, surface ripple effects, and guide systems learning.
in action:
Kenya’s Shift Beyond Behavior Change
More:
What Are Leverage Points — And Why Do They Matter for MEL?
How to Apply Domains of Change in Practice
05
Summary: Orientation Lens at a Glance
Orientation Lens at a Glance
Element
What It Does
Metaphor
Strategic Intent
Sets shared long-term purpose.
A compass bearing for your journey.
System Boundaries
Defines the area of the system to focus on.
Choosing the region of the map to chart.
Spheres of Control / Influence / Interest
Locates the initiative’s role and agency.
Marking where you stand, what you can reach, and what you’re watching.
Domains of Change
Identifies the kinds of shifts to track and learn from (e.g., power, relationships, institutions, resource flows, mindsets).
Reading the signs and landmarks that show you’re moving in the right direction.
Two Levels of the System in Practice
Broader System
The larger context—global markets, climate shifts, trade policy.
Core Boundary
The specific terrain where you engage—e.g., regional coffee value chains or district governance.
You track changes in the broader system but focus your actions and learning within the core boundary.
In Short
Your Strategic Intent sits within your Sphere of Interest, guiding engagement with the broader system.
Your core boundary is defined by your System Boundaries—the strategic subset (or “slice”) of the system you’re engaging.
Your Spheres locate your initiative within that system—clarifying where you act, where you influence, and what you monitor.
Your Domains of Change identify the types of shifts to track and learn from—such as power, relationships, institutions, resource flows, and mindsets.
Orientation Is Your Starting Compass—Not the Final Map
Orientation isn’t static—it shifts as you learn.
A Strategic Intent may become more grounded.
Boundaries may expand to include new actors or dynamics.
Spheres may grow or contract with changing influence.
Domains of Change may sharpen as you see what shifts really matter.
Systems MEL is a journey, not a checklist. Start with clarity—and adjust with intention.
Implemented by:
United Nations
Development Programme
FUNDED BY:
MEL 360 is part of the Systems, Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation initiative (SMLE) of UNDP funded by the Gates Foundation.
CONTACT US AT:
WEBSITE DESIGNED IN 2025 BY RAFA POLONI FOR UNDP