← Back to home

Systems Mapping: How to Map a System for Strategy and Evaluation

Most systems mapping approaches are designed for exploration and brainstorming. That's useful, but if you need a map that connects to strategy design and evaluation, you need a different approach.

Systems mapping is a way of visualising how different parts of a system connect and interact. It's become popular in fields ranging from design thinking to international development, public health to social change. The basic idea is straightforward: by mapping a system, you can understand it better and identify where to intervene.

But there's a problem. Most systems mapping methods are better at generating insight than enabling action. They help you explore a system, but they don't connect clearly to what you're going to do about it, or how you'll know if what you did worked.

This page introduces a different approach: mapping systems in terms of actions and actors. It's designed to be useful not just for understanding, but for strategy design and evaluation.

What most systems mapping approaches have in common

If you search for "how to map a system," you'll find a range of methods: cluster maps, causal loop diagrams, rich pictures, stakeholder maps, network maps, and more. These vary in complexity, but most share some common characteristics:

• Exploratory focus. The goal is usually to generate insight, surface assumptions, or build shared understanding among a team. The process of mapping is often as important as the map itself.
• Abstract variables. Many approaches map "factors" or "variables" (like "trust" or "capacity" or "coordination") rather than concrete things you can observe and measure.
• Relationships and feedback loops. The emphasis is typically on how things connect and influence each other, often through positive and negative feedback loops.
• Tolerance for mess. "The messier the better" is common advice. Systems are complex, so maps should reflect that complexity.

There's nothing wrong with this. Exploratory mapping is genuinely useful for making sense of complex situations and building alignment in a team. But it has limitations when you need to move from understanding to action.

The gap: from insight to assessment and action

The challenge comes when you need to answer practical questions about how the system is performing now, and about how to change it.

Understanding current performance

Before you can improve a system, you need to understand how well it's working. This means being able to answer questions like:

• How well is the system performing right now?
• Which parts are working well and which are underperforming?
• What are the underlying factors causing that underperformance?
• Where are the causal linkages: what's driving what?

A map of abstract variables doesn't help much here. If your map shows that "trust" affects "coordination," you still can't measure trust or coordination directly. You need a map that defines the system in terms of things you can actually observe and assess.

Designing and evaluating change

Once you understand the system, you need to be able to design interventions and evaluate whether they work:

• What specifically are we trying to change?
• Who needs to do something different?
• How will we know if the system has changed?
• What evidence would tell us our strategy is working?

Abstract maps don't answer these questions either. A map showing that "capacity building" leads to "improved market function" may be directionally true, but it doesn't tell you what to do or what to measure.

The same map for snapshots and change

Ideally, you want a map that works for both purposes: assessing the system at any point in time (a snapshot), and comparing snapshots to understand how the system has changed. The map itself is static. It shows the composition and performance of the system. Repeat it later, and you can see what's different.

This is the gap that Actions & Actors system mapping is designed to fill.

Actions & Actors: a different approach to systems mapping

The core idea is simple: map systems in terms of the actors involved (people, organisations, firms) and the actions they take (producing, buying, selling, regulating, informing, and so on).

This matters because:

• Actors are who you work with. Any strategy for changing a system ultimately involves influencing what specific actors do. If your map doesn't include actors, you have to translate from abstract concepts before you can design an intervention.
• Actions are observable. Unlike abstract variables like "trust" or "capacity," actions can be seen and counted. This makes them measurable, which matters if you want to evaluate whether the system has changed.
• The same map works for strategy and evaluation. If you design your strategy around changing specific actions by specific actors, the same framework tells you what to measure to assess whether your strategy worked.

How Actions & Actors mapping differs from other approaches

	Exploratory mapping	Actions & Actors mapping
Primary purpose	Generate insight, build shared understanding	Inform strategy design and evaluation
What gets mapped	Variables, factors, concepts	Specific actors and their actions
Level of abstraction	Often abstract (trust, capacity, norms)	Concrete (who does what)
Connection to measurement	Indirect: requires translation	Direct: actions are observable
When it's most useful	Early exploration, team alignment	Strategy design, monitoring, evaluation

This isn't about one approach being better than the other. They serve different purposes. If you're trying to make sense of a new problem space, exploratory mapping is the right tool. If you're designing a strategy or planning an evaluation, you need something more concrete.

What makes a system: actors, actions, and resources

In the Actions & Actors approach, a system is understood as:

• Actors: the people, organisations, firms, or other entities that do things. These can be grouped into types (e.g., "smallholder farmers," "input suppliers," "regulators").
• Actions: what actors do. This includes production actions (making things), exchange actions (buying and selling), and other actions like regulating, informing, or coordinating.
• Resources: what flows between actors as a result of their actions. Money, goods, information, services.

The system is the pattern of these actions and exchanges. Systemic change, then, is change in that pattern: actors doing things differently, new actors entering, existing actions becoming more widespread, and so on.

This framing connects directly to both strategy (what changes in actor behaviour are we trying to achieve?) and evaluation (have those changes happened? how widespread are they? are they sustainable?).

When to use this approach

Actions & Actors mapping is particularly useful when:

• You need to assess how well a system is currently performing, with concrete evidence
• You need to diagnose what's causing underperformance and trace the causal linkages
• You need to design a strategy that specifies who you're trying to influence and what you want them to do differently
• You need to evaluate whether a system has changed, by comparing snapshots over time
• You're working in a field where "systemic change" is an explicit goal but the definition is fuzzy
• You want a common framework that works across diagnosis, strategy, monitoring, and evaluation

It's less useful if your primary goal is early-stage exploration, creative brainstorming, or building team alignment around a complex issue. For those purposes, more open-ended mapping approaches may be more appropriate.

Getting started

The full methodology is set out in the paper Actions & Actors System Mapping: A Practical Guide to Delineating Systems. It includes:

• How to identify and categorise actors
• How to map actions and the exchanges between actors
• How to represent the system visually
• How the map connects to strategy design and evaluation

The approach was developed for market systems development programmes, but applies to any context where you're trying to understand a system in order to change it, and where you need to measure whether that change has happened.