From mystery to methodology: How the Common Foundations became my compass in impact measurement

Like many capacity builders and non-profit leaders, I’ve felt the weight of impact measurement—a sense that it was a mysterious art, reserved for specialized professionals armed with complex, standardized frameworks. There was a nagging feeling: “Am I doing this right? Is this good enough?”

This pressure was particularly intense when I worked with an education nonprofit. We knew we were doing good work, but proving it felt elusive. There was a belief that without knowing specific, validated frameworks – like those in health or engineering – you couldn’t truly measure your impact effectively. I stumbled upon the Donald Kirkpatrick framework (Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results), which was somehow liberating. It gave me a how, and the fact that it had a name and structure provided a sliver of the validation I craved.

But the questions persisted:

• How do I measure? Is there a universally accepted “right” way?
• What do I measure? Are my indicators correct? Do I have to pick from a pre-approved and formalized list, even if it doesn’t perfectly fit our unique work?

This uncertainty created a measurement impostor syndrome. My team and I needed external validation to confidently say, “Yes, this is our impact, and this is how we can prove it.”

Transitioning into consulting and coaching, I carried that same underlying uncertainty. While I could guide organizations on the basics of identifying success indicators and analyzing data, I lacked a coherent, teachable methodology. I couldn’t shake the feeling that maybe my advice wasn’t rigorous enough, wasn’t the “best” approach. I felt I was giving more intuition-based guidance than following a clear, proven path.

I needed something that wasn’t just theory, but a practical, accessible structure I could confidently teach and use to guide clients – something that acknowledged the real-world constraints and anxieties nonprofits face.

Finding the Common Foundations changed everything. It felt like someone had finally laid out the process in simple, common-sense terms, using accessible language. Two things immediately stood out:

1. The power of “good enough”: This phrase was revolutionary. It addressed the impostor syndrome I’d felt and seen in so many nonprofit leaders. It validated that overly complex, academic-level perfection is not needed to measure meaningfully. It offered a realistic, achievable standard. This simple concept gave me immense boldness as a consultant. I could finally tell clients, “If we follow these steps, we will achieve something that is credibly ‘good enough’ to understand and communicate your impact.”
2. A clear, simplified methodology: While other methods and resources existed (like the extensive information on the TIESS website), they often felt overwhelming. Common Foundations presents a distilled, straightforward explanation and way forward: a map to help organizations locate what they are currently missing in their management journey, a guide for the path forward that outlines the steps needed to reach the “good enough” destination, and a structured approach that can be taught systematically.

At the heart of Common Foundations are five essential practices that represent a common standard for good measurement practice. Their collective power lies in providing a clear, step-by-step journey. For a consultant, this is gold. The essential practices allowed me to:
…assess clients. During discovery calls, I could use the practices as a diagnostic tool to understand a client’s current state.
…scope and price work. The standard provides natural phases. I could clearly outline projects in a way that gives the client clarity (e.g., “Practices 1-3 will take roughly six months and cost X”).
…develop resources. It provides a structure for creating training materials, like the course I collaborated with Impact Frontiers to develop, and the course we are now working with Impact Toolbox to develop.

Common Foundations isn’t overly prescriptive about what to measure, unlike what I experienced searching for standardized indicators. It empowers organizations. The second essential practice, for instance, encourages organizations to define indicators to measure what they care most about. It gives them the authority to create their own relevant indicators, even while considering industry norms or funder requirements.

This shifts measurement from a reactive task (scrambling to answer grant application questions and grant reporting) to a proactive, strategic one. Organizations can use the Common Foundations to conduct gap analyses and plan their measurement capacity development over time (“In three years, we aim to meet all five essential practices”).

The Common Foundations provided the clarity, confidence, and practical methodology I needed as a consultant. It demystified impact measurement, replacing the feeling of inadequacy with a sense of achievable competence that I needed as a nonprofit leader. It gave me:

• Validation through the concept of “good enough.”
• A clear, teachable methodology based on the five essential practices.
• A flexible approach that meets clients where they are.
• A tool to make measurement strategic, not reactive.
• A practical way to structure and deliver consulting engagements.

The Common Foundations are a reliable compass that I feel lucky to have found. The standard helped guide me and my clients toward meaningful, manageable, and ultimately “good enough” impact measurement.