For Non-profits
Your theory of change is queryable.
Scopic gives every outcome, every causal relationship, and every partner their own record — and keeps the map and the monitoring frame in the same place.
Join waitlistThe situation
You have a theory of change diagram and a log frame spreadsheet. They describe the same causal chain. The diagram was built in a planning workshop. The spreadsheet was built for a funder. Neither knows about the other.
When the programme changes direction, updating all three documents is a coordination task that often does not get done. Staff learn to treat the theory of change as ceremonial — a document you maintain for funders, not a tool you actually use.
Every outcome is a record
In Scopic, each outcome in your theory of change is an element with properties: indicator, measurement method, baseline, target. The arrow between activities and outcomes is a typed connection — 'contributes to', 'is precondition for' — with an evidence strength property. The map is the theory. The database is the monitoring frame.
Screenshot: outcome element open with indicator and measurement properties
Update once. Map and database reflect it.
Change an outcome's indicator in the database and it is updated everywhere — on the map, on its page, in every filter that references it. The theory of change and the monitoring system are not two documents to keep in sync. They are two views of the same model.
Screenshot: outcomes as database rows with indicator and status properties
Partners and funders alongside the theory
A single Scopic project holds your theory of change, your partner network, and your ecosystem map — all in the same database. Connect a funder to the outcome they fund. Connect a partner to the activities they implement. Filter to see only funding relations, only outcome indicators, or only activities above a given implementation stage.
Screenshot: funders connected to outcomes, partners connected to activities
What people say
Finally built a theory of change that I actually use. In Scopic it's a live model, not a PowerPoint slide I update once a year.
2 months ago
The monitoring frame and the theory of change map are the same thing in Scopic. When we revised our outcomes in January, I updated it once. The funder report referenced the same model.
1 month ago
Built our partner network map alongside the theory of change. Now I can show a funder exactly which partners touch which outcomes. That clarity would have taken a week in our old system.
3 weeks ago
The connection type system changed how we document causal logic. 'Contributes to' and 'is precondition for' look different on the map and filter differently in the database. That distinction matters.
6 weeks ago
Map the causal logic your programme runs on.
Join waitlistFor Non-profits
Your theory of change is queryable.
The situation
You have a theory of change diagram and a log frame spreadsheet. They describe the same causal chain. The diagram was made in PowerPoint or Visio during a planning workshop. The spreadsheet was built for a funder. Neither knows about the other. Indicators live in a third tool. When the programme changes direction, updating all three is a coordination task that often does not get done.
The result is an organisation where the strategy document, the monitoring system, and the visual artefact used in partnership conversations are three versions of the same theory, slowly diverging. Staff learn to treat the theory of change as ceremonial.
What changes
In Scopic, every outcome in the theory of change is an element with properties: an indicator, a measurement method, a baseline, a target. Every arrow is a typed relation — 'contributes to', 'enables', 'is precondition for' — with properties of its own. The map and the database hold the same data. Update an indicator in the database and it is updated on the map.
Partners, funders, and beneficiary groups are elements connected to the relevant programme components by typed relations. You can show the whole ecosystem on one map or filter the database to see only the funding relations, only the outcome indicators, or only the activities above a given implementation stage.
Maps you'd build
- Theory of change
Inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact as elements with indicator and measurement properties. Causal relations connect them with a type ('contributes to', 'is precondition for') and an evidence strength property. The map is the theory; the database is the monitoring frame.
- Partner network
Implementing partners, sub-grantees, and coordination bodies, with 'funded by', 'implements with', and 'reports to' relations. Each relation carries a contract value, a reporting frequency, and a relationship health note. Useful for capacity mapping and accountability audits.
- Ecosystem map
Organisations working in the same space as your programmes — government agencies, other NGOs, private sector actors, community groups — with typed relations showing formal coordination, informal influence, and gaps where collaboration is absent but needed.
Map the causal logic your programme runs on.
Join the waitlist to get early access or talk through your use case.
Join waitlist- Theory of change
Outcomes, activities, and causal connections — all queryable. The map is the theory; the database is the monitoring frame.
- Partner and funder network
Connect partners to activities and funders to outcomes. Filter to see the full accountability picture.
- Ecosystem mapping
Other organisations, government bodies, and gaps in the field — all in the same project as your programme logic.