How would you design outcome measurement for a programme that has never measured outcomes before?

Slowly, and with fewer indicators than the funder asked for.

1. Structurally the model is: an Impact Strategy groups the outcomes that together describe the change you are trying to create; Outcome records the expected change; Indicator Definition is the reusable, standard definition of what gets measured; Indicator Assignment attaches a definition to a programme or outcome; Indicator Performance Period carries the time period, calculation frequency and baseline; Indicator Result holds the measured value.
2. The reason to define indicators once and assign them many times is comparability. If each programme invents its own version of “attendance rate”, the organisation cannot aggregate anything.
3. Practically I start with two or three indicators that the organisation can genuinely collect. An impact framework with thirty indicators and no data collection routine produces nothing.
4. I also insist on a baseline before claiming change, and on naming who collects each value and when. Outcome measurement fails on collection discipline far more often than on configuration.