Learn how to measure impact using IMP's Five Dimensions framework—What, Who, How Much, Contribution, and Risk—with data collection tools built for Sopact Sense.
Data teams spend the bulk of their day fixing silos, typos, and duplicates instead of generating insights.
Data teams spend the bulk of their day fixing silos, typos, and duplicates instead of generating insights.
Hard to coordinate design, data entry, and stakeholder input across departments, leading to inefficiencies and silos.
Programs discover drop-off and misalignment issues only after damage occurs because qualitative risk signals aren't monitored continuously. Intelligent Row flags patterns early.
Open-ended feedback, documents, images, and video sit unused—impossible to analyze at scale.
Impact reports show scale and depth numbers but miss why outcomes matter to participants, weakening funder trust. Intelligent Grid weaves narratives throughout reports.
Author: Unmesh Sheth
Last Updated:
October 30, 2025
Founder & CEO of Sopact with 35 years of experience in data systems and AI
Every enterprise affects people and the planet—some effects are positive, others negative; some intended, others unintended. But how do you decide which effects truly matter? What data should you collect to understand your real impact?
At SoPact, we recommend using the Impact Management Project (IMP) framework to answer these questions. The IMP's Five Dimensions of Impact provides a structured approach to defining, measuring, and communicating your organization's true impact on stakeholders.
Watch: Impact Management Project - Five Dimensions of Impact
The IMP framework helps you move beyond simple output tracking to understand the full scope of your impact. Instead of just focusing on your sector (like "healthcare" or "education"), these dimensions help you identify what outcomes you're creating, for whom, and whether those outcomes can truly be attributed to your work.
The outcomes you contribute to and how important they are to stakeholders
Which stakeholders experience the outcome and how underserved they were
Scale, depth, and duration of the change experienced
Whether your effort triggered change that wouldn't have happened otherwise
Likelihood that impact will differ from expectations
In this article, we'll guide you through each dimension and show you how to design effective data collection strategies that align with the Five Dimensions of Impact. You'll learn how to structure your measurement approach so that the data you collect can be seamlessly integrated into SoPact Sense, our AI-powered qualitative analysis platform.
By the end, you'll have access to a practical tool that helps you create a data collection framework specifically designed around these five dimensions—ensuring that every question you ask and every data point you gather contributes to a complete understanding of your impact.
This article will walk you through each dimension with practical examples and actionable guidance. At the end, you'll get access to our data collection tool designed specifically for the Five Dimensions of Impact.
Get StartedDesign data collection aligned with the Five Dimensions of Impact framework
This survey builder helps you create data collection instruments that align with the IMP's Five Dimensions of Impact framework. Answer questions about your program, and we'll generate a customized survey that captures data across all five dimensions.
Time Required: 10-15 minutes
Output: A complete survey ready for use with SoPact Sense
Select the strategic goal(s) that best match your approach
Select all that apply. These goals will shape the questions we generate.
Briefly describe what your program does (2-3 sentences)
Define your outcomes and stakeholders
What is the main outcome you're trying to achieve?
List 2-3 additional outcomes (comma-separated)
Who are the main people experiencing your outcomes?
Describe the key barriers or disadvantages they face
Define scale, depth, and duration parameters
What quantitative measures show degree of change? (comma-separated)
When will you measure lasting impact?
Assess your program's contribution to outcomes
What other programs or support could stakeholders access?
What makes your program different or more accessible?
Identify key risks to monitor
Select the risk types most important for your program
This survey has been customized based on your program details and aligns with all five dimensions of impact.
Next Steps: Review the questions below, make any adjustments, and then export to use with SoPact Sense for data collection and analysis.
The outcomes your enterprise contributes to and how important they are to your stakeholders
The "What" dimension is foundational to your impact measurement strategy. It asks a deceptively simple question: What outcomes are you actually creating?
Many organizations fall into the trap of measuring outputs (the things you do) rather than outcomes (the changes that result). The "What" dimension forces you to think beyond your activities and focus on the real changes experienced by the people you serve.
Outputs are the direct products of your activities—workshops delivered, meals served, loans disbursed.
Outcomes are the changes that result from those activities—increased knowledge, improved nutrition, economic stability.
The "What" dimension focuses exclusively on outcomes because that's where true impact lives.
The "What" dimension has two critical components: identifying the outcome AND understanding how important that outcome is to your stakeholders. An outcome that seems significant to you might not be what your beneficiaries actually value most.
Potential Outcomes:
Your program might track job placement rates (90% of participants get jobs within 3 months). But when you ask participants what matters most to them, you discover they value:
The outcome that matters most to stakeholders might not be simply "getting a job" but "achieving meaningful employment that provides independence and fulfillment."
What specific change do we want to see in people's lives, communities, or the environment?
What outcomes do our stakeholders themselves say are most important?
Are we focused on immediate outcomes, intermediate changes, or long-term transformation?
If we can only measure three outcomes, which ones matter most to our mission?
What unintended negative outcomes might we be creating alongside positive ones?
A comprehensive understanding of "What" requires acknowledging that your enterprise likely creates both positive and negative outcomes. The IMP framework encourages honest assessment of both.
The intended beneficial changes you're working toward
Example: Improved health outcomes through nutrition education
Unintended harmful effects that may result from your activities
Example: Increased stress for participants juggling program requirements with existing responsibilities
Pro Tip: Use qualitative data collection through SoPact Sense to surface outcomes that stakeholders value but you haven't thought to measure. Open-ended questions reveal what truly matters to the people you serve.
Once you've identified your key outcomes and confirmed their importance to stakeholders, you can design data collection that directly measures whether and how those outcomes are being achieved.
Identified Outcome: Reduced obesity rates among low-income families
Why It Matters to Stakeholders: Improved health, reduced medical costs, increased energy and quality of life
Data Collection Questions:
Defining "What" sets the foundation for all your impact measurement. Before you can understand who experiences your impact, how much impact you're creating, or what you contributed, you need absolute clarity on what outcomes you're pursuing and why they matter.
In the next section, we'll explore the "Who" dimension—identifying which stakeholders experience these outcomes and understanding how underserved they were before your intervention.
The "What" dimension isn't just about listing outcomes—it's about understanding which outcomes create genuine value for stakeholders and why those outcomes matter. Let stakeholder voices guide your outcome definition, and be honest about both positive and negative effects.
Which stakeholders experience the outcome and how underserved they were before your intervention
The "Who" dimension shifts focus from what changes are happening to whom those changes are happening for. This dimension recognizes that impact matters more when it reaches those who need it most.
Not all stakeholders are equal in their need for intervention. Someone with abundant resources and opportunities experiences outcomes differently than someone facing systemic barriers. The "Who" dimension helps you understand whether your impact is reaching those who are most underserved.
The concept of "underserved" is central to the "Who" dimension. It refers to stakeholders who have historically lacked access to resources, opportunities, or support relative to others in society.
A job training program that places 100 people in employment creates different levels of impact depending on who those 100 people are:
Both represent "successful outcomes," but the latter creates significantly more impact because those individuals were far more underserved.
Start by mapping all stakeholder groups who experience outcomes from your work—both positive and negative. Remember that stakeholders extend beyond direct beneficiaries.
Primary recipients of your intervention
Example: Students in your education program
Those who benefit through connection to direct beneficiaries
Example: Families of students whose educational success creates household benefits
Broader community affected by your work
Example: Local employers who gain access to trained workforce
Those who may experience unintended harm
Example: Local businesses competing with enterprises you support
What was the stakeholder's situation before your intervention? What resources, opportunities, or support did they lack?
What systemic barriers prevent this group from accessing similar outcomes elsewhere?
Could these stakeholders easily access similar support from other organizations or systems?
How vulnerable is this group to negative shocks without intervention?
Do stakeholders face multiple, overlapping forms of disadvantage?
Who: Low-income families in specific geographic areas
Why They're Underserved:
Alternative Access: These families typically cannot afford gym memberships, nutrition counseling, or healthy meal delivery services available to higher-income populations.
Many stakeholders experience multiple, intersecting forms of disadvantage. Understanding these intersections provides a more complete picture of how underserved your stakeholders truly are.
A single mother who is also:
...faces far greater barriers than someone experiencing just one of these factors. Impact on this individual represents deeper impact than support for someone facing fewer intersecting barriers.
While you can identify demographic characteristics that suggest stakeholders are underserved, the most powerful approach involves letting stakeholders define their own barriers and needs.
Pro Tip: Use SoPact Sense to collect qualitative narratives where stakeholders describe their own situations, barriers, and needs in their own words. This reveals dimensions of being underserved that demographic data alone cannot capture.
Your data collection should capture both demographic information about who you serve and qualitative insights into how underserved they are.
Demographic Data (Quantitative):
Barrier Assessment (Qualitative):
Understanding "Who" your impact reaches is essential for demonstrating the depth of your work. Impact on highly underserved populations represents greater value than impact on those with abundant alternatives.
In the next section, we'll explore the "How Much" dimension—measuring the scale, depth, and duration of the changes your stakeholders experience.
The "Who" dimension isn't just about demographics—it's about understanding how underserved your stakeholders are and why your impact matters more for them than for others. Combine demographic data with stakeholder voices to create a complete picture of who you serve and why they need your support.
The scale, depth, and duration of change experienced by stakeholders
The "How Much" dimension quantifies your impact across three critical aspects: how many people you reach, how significantly their lives change, and how long those changes last. This dimension transforms abstract outcomes into measurable impact.
While "What" defines the outcome and "Who" identifies the stakeholders, "How Much" answers the essential question: what is the magnitude of the change you're creating?
How many stakeholders experience the outcome
How many people are we reaching with our intervention?
500 low-income families enrolled in nutrition program
How much change stakeholders experience—the degree or magnitude
How significantly has their situation improved?
Average BMI reduction of 3 points; participants report major lifestyle changes
How long the outcome lasts after intervention
Will this change persist over time?
80% of participants maintain healthy habits 2 years post-program
True impact requires balance across all three components. Consider these scenarios:
The most powerful impact achieves meaningful scale, substantial depth, and lasting duration.
Scale is the most straightforward component—it's about counting. However, effective scale measurement requires clarity about who counts and over what time period.
Direct vs. Indirect Reach:
Time Period:
Unique vs. Total:
Depth is the most nuanced component. It requires understanding both the magnitude of change and what that change means to stakeholders.
Both quantitative metrics and qualitative meaning are essential for understanding true depth of impact. Numbers show magnitude; stories show significance.
Duration answers whether changes stick. A program that creates immediate change that disappears within weeks has less impact than one creating change that lasts years.
Short-term (0-6 months post-intervention):
Medium-term (6-18 months):
Long-term (18+ months):
Key Questions:
Duration Challenge: Many organizations only measure immediate outcomes and never follow up. Without duration data, you can't claim lasting impact. Plan follow-up data collection at 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention.
How many individuals/families/organizations did we serve this period?
By how much did [specific metric] change from baseline to post-intervention?
How would you describe the changes you've experienced? How significant are they to your life?
Six months later: Are you still experiencing the benefits? What has changed?
What factors help you maintain these changes? What threatens them?
Scale: 450 low-income families participated over 12 months
Depth - Quantitative:
Depth - Qualitative:
Duration:
Organizations often face trade-offs between these three components. Understanding these relationships helps you make strategic decisions about resource allocation.
There's no "right" answer—your mission and theory of change should guide these decisions. The key is measuring all three honestly and explaining your strategic choices.
The "How Much" dimension provides the quantitative backbone of your impact story. Combined with "What" (the outcomes) and "Who" (the stakeholders), you now have a comprehensive picture of the change you're creating.
In the next section, we'll explore the "Contribution" dimension—determining whether your intervention actually caused the changes you're observing, or whether they would have happened anyway.
SoPact Sense Integration: Track all three components systematically by combining quantitative metrics (scale and measurable depth) with qualitative narratives (meaningful depth and duration factors). This mixed-methods approach provides the complete "How Much" picture.
"How Much" requires measuring three distinct but interconnected components: the number of people you reach (scale), the degree of change they experience (depth), and how long that change persists (duration). True impact requires strong performance across all three dimensions, not just one.
Whether your enterprise's efforts triggered change that would not have happened otherwise
The "Contribution" dimension asks perhaps the most challenging question in impact measurement: Can you claim credit for the outcomes you observe?
You've identified outcomes (What), stakeholders (Who), and measured the magnitude of change (How Much). But did your intervention actually cause those outcomes? Or would they have happened anyway?
What would have happened without your intervention?
The "counterfactual" is what would have occurred in the absence of your intervention. It's the alternative reality where your program doesn't exist. Contribution is measured by comparing actual outcomes to this counterfactual scenario.
Observed Outcome: 75% of participants gained employment within 3 months
Counterfactual: What employment rate would they have achieved without your program?
Many factors influence outcomes beyond your intervention:
Your contribution is the portion of the outcome that can be attributed specifically to your work, accounting for these other factors.
Contribution exists on a spectrum from minimal to decisive. Understanding where your intervention falls helps communicate your impact honestly.
Several factors influence how much credit you can reasonably claim for observed outcomes.
Outcomes that would have happened anyway without your intervention. The larger the deadweight, the smaller your contribution.
Your positive impact on one group causes negative impact on another. Example: Your job training helps participants take jobs that others would have gotten.
Other organizations or factors also contributing to the same outcomes. You must share credit with these other actors.
Benefits that fade over time reduce your long-term contribution, even if short-term contribution was high.
While proving causation definitively requires rigorous evaluation methods (like randomized controlled trials), you can assess contribution through systematic questioning and data collection.
What would stakeholders' situations have been without your intervention?
Could stakeholders have accessed similar support elsewhere? If so, what made your intervention different or necessary?
Do stakeholders themselves attribute their outcomes to your program? What role do they believe you played?
What other factors (people, programs, events) contributed to the outcomes? How significant was each?
Can you explain how your specific activities led to the observed outcomes? What's the causal pathway?
Observed Outcome: 80% employment rate among program graduates
Contribution Assessment:
Conclusion: Substantial contribution. The employment gap between participants and non-participants, combined with lack of alternatives for target population and strong stakeholder attribution, suggests the program is the primary driver of outcomes, though economic growth plays a supporting role.
Practical Approach: Most organizations can't run RCTs. Instead, combine multiple methods: track before/after changes, collect stakeholder attribution data through qualitative research, and compare to available benchmark data for similar populations.
Design your data collection to gather evidence of contribution, not just evidence of outcomes.
Counterfactual Questions:
Attribution Questions:
Alternative Support Questions:
The temptation to claim full credit for positive outcomes is strong, especially when reporting to funders. However, over-claiming contribution damages credibility and provides false information for decision-making.
Instead: Be transparent about what you know and don't know about your contribution. Acknowledge other contributing factors. Share credit with partners and collaborators. Admit uncertainty when it exists.
Attribution asks: "Did we cause this outcome?" (Difficult to prove definitively)
Contribution asks: "Did we play a meaningful role in this outcome?" (More realistic to assess)
The IMP framework wisely focuses on contribution rather than attribution, recognizing that social change is almost always the result of multiple actors and factors.
Understanding your contribution is essential for honest impact reporting. It prevents you from claiming credit you don't deserve while helping you articulate the genuine value you create.
In the final dimension, we'll explore "Risk"—assessing the likelihood that your impact will differ from expectations and what factors might threaten your ability to create intended outcomes.
SoPact Sense Application: Collect rich qualitative narratives where stakeholders describe their journey, including what factors helped them and what they think would have happened without your support. These stories provide powerful contribution evidence while maintaining stakeholder voice.
Contribution is about understanding what role your enterprise played in creating outcomes. While perfect certainty about causation is rarely possible, you can gather strong evidence through comparison data, stakeholder attribution, and analysis of alternative explanations. Be honest about what you can and cannot claim.
The likelihood that impact will differ from expectations
The "Risk" dimension recognizes a fundamental truth: impact rarely goes exactly as planned. External factors change, stakeholders behave unexpectedly, evidence proves weaker than assumed, and execution falters.
While the first four dimensions help you define and measure intended impact, the Risk dimension asks: What could go wrong? What might prevent you from achieving the impact you expect?
Understanding impact risk is critical for:
The IMP framework identifies nine distinct categories of impact risk. Understanding each helps you systematically assess what might threaten your impact.
Definition: The risk that your theory of change isn't backed by strong evidence
Definition: External factors beyond your control that could undermine impact
Definition: Risk that you can't reach or engage your target stakeholders
Definition: Stakeholders leave the program before completing it or experiencing full benefits
Definition: Risk of not achieving impact cost-effectively compared to alternatives
Definition: Risk that your team can't deliver activities as planned
Definition: Risk that your goals don't align with what stakeholders actually need or want
Definition: Risk that positive outcomes don't last after intervention ends
Definition: Risk of unintended negative consequences you didn't anticipate
For each risk type, assess the likelihood and potential severity. This helps prioritize which risks need the most attention.
Evidence Risk - Low: Nutrition education and behavior change programs have strong evidence base
External Risk - Medium: Food desert conditions and economic constraints limit healthy food access
Participation Risk - Medium: Target families face time and transportation barriers
Drop-off Risk - High: 12-month commitment is challenging for families with unstable schedules
Execution Risk - Low: Experienced staff with strong retention
Alignment Risk - Low: Program co-designed with target community
Endurance Risk - High: Maintaining behavior change after program ends requires ongoing environmental support
Unexpected Impact Risk - Medium: Possible stress from program requirements or family dynamics around food changes
Your data collection should help you monitor risks throughout implementation, not just measure outcomes at the end.
Are you seeing the intermediate outcomes your theory of change predicts? What evidence suggests your approach is working or not working?
What external changes (economic, policy, social) are affecting your stakeholders? How are these changes impacting the outcomes you're trying to create?
What barriers prevent you from participating fully? What would make it easier for you to engage?
Are you considering leaving the program? What would cause you to drop out? What keeps you engaged?
Is this program addressing what matters most to you? What would make it more relevant to your needs?
What will help you maintain these changes after the program ends? What concerns do you have about sustaining progress?
Have you experienced any unexpected negative effects from participating? What challenges has the program created?
Once you've identified risks, develop strategies to reduce their likelihood or minimize their impact.
Transparent risk communication builds trust with funders, partners, and beneficiaries. It demonstrates maturity and strategic thinking.
Effective Risk Communication: Don't hide risks or pretend everything will go perfectly. Instead, identify key risks, explain their potential impact, and describe your mitigation strategies. This shows you're thinking critically about implementation challenges.
Poor Communication: "Our program will reduce obesity by 30% among participants."
Strong Communication: "Our program aims to reduce obesity by 30% among participants. Key risks include high drop-off rates (we're addressing this through peer support groups and flexible scheduling) and endurance challenges (we're building in 12-month follow-up support and environmental changes). Based on similar programs, we estimate 20-35% reduction is realistic, accounting for these risks."
Qualitative data collection is particularly valuable for risk monitoring because it surfaces issues before they become crises.
SoPact Sense for Risk: Regular check-ins asking open-ended questions about challenges, barriers, and concerns give you early warning signals. Analyze these narratives to identify emerging risks before they threaten your impact.
You've now explored all five dimensions of impact:
Together, these five dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for defining, measuring, and communicating your impact.
In the next section, you'll get access to a practical tool that helps you design data collection aligned with all five dimensions—ensuring every question you ask contributes to understanding your complete impact story.
Risk is not something to hide or minimize—it's an essential component of honest impact assessment. By systematically identifying risks across nine categories, monitoring them through data collection, and developing mitigation strategies, you demonstrate maturity and build stakeholder trust while protecting your ability to create impact.
