Build an SROI value map by connecting each material outcome to the stakeholder who experiences it, the evidence of change, a suitable valuation method and the assumptions used in the calculation. Record inputs, timing, sources and exclusions as well. The map is the working record behind the ratio; a completed table does not by itself establish a credible result.
This is an optional valuation exercise within your chosen course. Bring your valuation-readiness brief. Here you will build a first map, distinguish observed outcomes from assumptions, and give each unresolved row a next action. Related references cover proxy selection and the ratio when your evidence is ready.
What belongs in an SROI impact map?
The SROI Guide uses the term Impact Map; “value map” is also used for the working table linking outcomes to value. Keep the evidence and calculation transparent whichever label your team uses. Social Value International’s Guide to SROI provides the underlying sequence from scope and stakeholders through outcomes, valuation, impact adjustments, calculation and reporting.
Use a workbook or connected set of tables when a single sheet becomes too wide. The following compact structure keeps the analysis readable. It is a practical worksheet layout, not an official certification template.
| Record | Include |
|---|---|
| Scope and inputs | Activity, period, analysis purpose, stakeholder boundary and resources invested. |
| Outcome and evidence | Stakeholder, change, indicator, quantity, observation period and source ID. |
| Valuation | Method or proxy, unit, source, applicability and any exclusions. |
| Contribution and time | Deadweight, attribution, displacement, duration and later-year drop-off with reasons. |
| Review and calculation | Status, owner, unresolved questions, formula and model version. |
Assign a stable outcome ID and source references so the narrative, calculation and evidence register can point to the same row. Keep raw evidence separate from approved interpretations. A revised proxy should not erase the source and reasoning used in the previous report.
Define the boundary before entering values
Write down the activity, delivery period, stakeholders, purpose and whether this is a forecast or an evaluation. Then identify the resources invested for that scope. Include relevant non-cash contributions where the analysis calls for them, with a documented valuation approach. Do not use only one funder’s grant as the denominator while counting all the benefits of a wider program without explaining and justifying that boundary.
Decide how the team will review materiality. A small number of people can experience an important negative outcome, so a low count alone is not a reason to exclude it. Social Value International’s principles call for stakeholder involvement and a fair account of what matters. Record the reason for including or excluding an outcome.
Write outcomes before choosing proxies
Begin with the change people experience. “Attended a workshop” is an output. “Can use the new skill at work” is a possible outcome, which still needs evidence. Ask affected people what changed, what did not and whether anything became worse.
Social Value International’s guidance on understanding change includes intended and unintended, positive and negative changes. Do not limit the map to the favorable outcomes already named in a funding proposal.
Split a row when it combines different stakeholders, outcomes or units. Keep “participant earnings change” distinct from “employer recruitment costs,” for example. Before adding them together, examine whether their boundaries overlap or whether one figure already includes the other effect.
Worked example: a map that keeps gaps visible
Use this fictional training-cohort example. The approved release A contains 80 starters, 60 known employment statuses at 90-day follow-up and 36 participants employed at that point. This is enough to describe point-in-time employment with its coverage limitation. It is not yet enough to value a full year of earnings.
| Outcome candidate | Evidence available | Review action |
|---|---|---|
| Employment at 90 days | 36 employed among 60 known statuses; 80 starters. | Report status and coverage. Do not substitute a year of earnings. |
| Improved financial wellbeing | No approved outcome measure supplied in this exercise. | Define the change with participants and plan evidence collection. |
| Transport burden | 12 of 18 purposively selected interviewees mention difficulties. | Investigate the theme and its scope; do not extrapolate to all starters. |
This first map contains no monetary total. That is intentional. A useful map can show that the next task is collecting or reviewing evidence, rather than selecting a dollar value. “Not yet valued” is different from zero value.
The transport row also shows why interviews belong in the evidence model. A reviewed theme can identify an issue worth investigating even when it cannot support a population estimate or a monetary amount. Keep the source excerpts and sampling context with the row.
Add valuation and adjustment fields with reasons
For a row that is ready to value, document the chosen unit, value, source, geography, currency and year. Add a rationale for why that method represents this stakeholder’s outcome. The related lesson on financial proxies provides the selection worksheet.
Record the assumptions used to avoid overclaiming: what would have happened anyway, the contribution of others, any displacement and the duration of the outcome. If value continues into later years, explain the drop-off assumption. Keep missing-data coverage separate from drop-off; unanswered follow-up is not automatically the same thing as declining continuing value.
Do not populate a missing field with zero so a formula will run. Use “not applicable” only with an explanation. For example, a one-year model may not apply later-year drop-off, but that does not establish a zero deadweight assumption. Each field answers a different question.
Check the units before calculating
Take one proposed row and read its units aloud. Are you multiplying people by a value per person-year, events by a value per event, or hours by a value per hour? A mismatch here can multiply the estimate without adding any real outcome.
Suppose a separate fictional arithmetic exercise contains 10 people, each with an outcome sustained for six months, and a hypothetical value of 100 currency units per person-month. The unadjusted amount is 10 × 6 × 100 = 6,000 units. If the value were instead per person-year, that multiplication would be wrong. These are invented teaching values, not a proxy recommendation or a customer result.
This amount is not the SROI ratio or the final impact value. Contribution assumptions, possible overlap and other material outcomes still need examination. The ratio lesson later explains how timing and inputs enter the calculation.
Prevent double counting and keep negative outcomes in view
Ask whether two rows represent different outcomes or two descriptions of the same change. “Reduced financial stress” and “improved wellbeing” might overlap, depending on the measures and valuation methods. Separate labels do not establish that both amounts can be added.
Likewise, follow an outcome chain before valuing every step. If increased skill leads to employment and income, adding a full value for each stage may count the same benefit repeatedly. Document what each value includes and why the combination is appropriate.
Do not erase a material adverse outcome because the current model cannot price it. Keep it in the narrative and evidence register, explain the valuation gap and assess how its exclusion affects the interpretation of the total. A positive monetary subtotal is not a complete account when important harms remain outside it.
Use AI to draft rows, then review them
An assistant can organize the map from supplied evidence and identify incomplete fields. It should not convert an unmeasured outcome into a measured one or treat a source name as sufficient validation.
Build a draft SROI value map for [scope and decision] using only [approved evidence and source register]. For each stakeholder and outcome, list the indicator, quantity, period, evidence source, candidate valuation method, unit, duration, contribution assumptions and possible overlap. Separate observations from forecasts. Mark unsupported fields “needs evidence”; do not invent values or default missing adjustments to zero. Include negative and unintended outcomes. Return each row with a plain-language review status, the unresolved question and the next collection or review action.
The status labels can be “ready for review,” “needs evidence” and “not appropriate for this claim.” If you use green, amber and red, keep the words and reasons visible. A green row is not independent assurance.
In Sopact, test this process on one configured workflow with connected records and source documents. Confirm that the reviewer can find the evidence and preserve the approved assumptions. Do not assume that a prompt alone sets up every collection field, review rule or financial calculation.
Fix a weak row with an evidence plan
Adding one intake question may seem enough to complete the row. Usually the plan needs more detail. For the earnings row, identify the measure, comparison period, follow-up timing, privacy arrangements, source and reviewer. Explain how you will distinguish changed earnings from employment status alone.
Give the action an owner and a collection point in the workflow. State what the new evidence could support and what it still would not establish. Better earnings data, for example, does not automatically resolve what would have happened without the program.
Keep the map version with its evidence release. When new data arrives, review the affected row and record the change. Do not rewrite the historical model without preserving the earlier assumptions.
Watch the SROI introduction
Watch the video · 4 minutes 13 seconds. If you watched it in the related lesson, revisit it with your map: identify the evidence required before each calculation. Browse the video library.
Frequently asked questions
What is an SROI value map?
It is the working record that connects stakeholders and outcomes to evidence, valuation methods, assumptions and calculations. It also records scope, inputs, sources and exclusions so the final ratio can be examined.
Is a value map the same as an impact map?
In this lesson, value map refers to the working table behind an SROI analysis. The SROI Guide uses Impact Map. Check the fields and definitions in the method you follow rather than relying on the label alone.
Can I build the map before I have monetary values?
Yes. Start with stakeholders, outcomes and evidence. Mark unresolved valuation fields clearly. A map that reveals missing evidence can guide collection before a monetary calculation is appropriate.
What is the difference between an output and an outcome in the map?
An output describes delivery, such as workshops attended. An outcome describes a change experienced by a stakeholder, such as applying a new skill. The outcome needs evidence; delivery alone does not prove it occurred.
Does a missing proxy mean an outcome has zero value?
No. It means the monetary valuation is unresolved. Keep material outcomes visible, explain the gap and avoid presenting a partial monetary subtotal as a complete account.
How do I avoid double counting?
Check whether rows describe overlapping changes, whether one valuation already includes another, and whether multiple stages of the same outcome chain are being added. Record what each value covers and justify any aggregation.
Can one new survey question make an SROI row valid?
Not necessarily. You may also need a defined comparison period, follow-up, suitable valuation source, contribution evidence and review. State precisely which gap the question addresses and which remain open.
When is the map ready for the ratio calculation?
When the scope, inputs, material outcomes, quantities, valuations, timing and contribution assumptions have been reviewed, and unresolved gaps are understood. A fully populated sheet is not enough if its entries are unsupported.
Continue to proxy selection
Related practice: Choose a financial proxy that fits the outcome. Bring one row from your map and compare candidate sources. For the broader concept, read the SROI overview.
When preparing the final account, use the impact-report writing ebook and explore report examples. Show the evidence and limitations behind the number.
Lesson revised September 12, 2026. All numerical exercises are fictional. This worksheet is a teaching aid, not an independently assured SROI analysis.