Transcript Logical Framework for Project Design
IDEV 624 – Monitoring and Evaluation
Logical Framework for Project Design
William Bertrand, PhD
Sources: Prepared by the Payson Center for training purposes, drawing on multiple sources
Origins
• The logical framework approach was developed in the late 1960s to assist the US Agency of
I
nternational Development (USAID) as a tool for: – Detailed planning with clearly defined objectives that can be monitored – Clear management responsibility – Pre-determined evaluation process (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Origins (cont.)
• In use since 1960
’
s by USAID • Now required by many bilateral donors such as Germany, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada and Australia
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Logical Framework Approach
Tools for Project Design and Implementation:
1. Stakeholder analysis 2. Problem analysis 3. Analysis of objectives 4. Analysis of alternatives 5. The Logical Framework Matrix (LFM)
LFA Project Cycle
(IDB, Logical Framework Approach)
Stakeholder Analysis
• • The
stakeholders table
lists any group of people that are of concern to the project. These people may either be in favor of or opposed to the project. The stakeholders table addresses the 1. interests, 2. resources and mandates, and 3. problems perceived for each of these groups.
Group Interests Resources and Mandates Problems Perceived
Problem Analysis
• The
problem tree
relationships of the problem that the project seeks to address visualizes the cause and effect • It identifies the roots of the problem and its consequences on the various levels of analysis • Problem trees can come in many different shapes and can get highly complex
Problem Tree
EFFECT CAUSE
9 (UNITED NATIONS: Results-Based Management - Logical Framework Approach)
Problem Analysis: Bus Example
Effects
Passengers hurt or killed Loss of confidence in bus company People are late Frequent bus accidents
Core problem
Drivers not careful enough
Causes
Vehicles too old Bad conditions of vehicles Bad road conditions No ongoing maintenance 10 (Jürgen Carls, Logical Framework, University of Peace)
Analysis of Objectives
• The
objective tree
is directly based on the problem tree • Any problems identified by the problem tree are transformed into objectives • Consequently, the shape of the objectives tree is identical with the shape of the problem tree
Objective Tree
Ends Means 12 (UNITED NATIONS: Results-Based Management - Logical Framework Approach)
Relationship Between the Problems Tree and the Objective Tree
PROBLEM TREE
Focal problem
OBJECTIVE TREE
Project Purpose Effects Causes Overall Objectives Results
13 (UNITED NATIONS: Results-Based Management - Logical Framework Approach)
Objectives Analysis: Bus Example
Customers have a better image of the bus company Less passengers hurt Passengers arrive at scheduled time Drivers drive carefully and responsibly Old vehicles are regularly replaced Frequency of bus accidents considerably reduced Vehicles kept in good condition Road conditions improved Vehicles regularly maintained and checked 14 (Jürgen Carls, Logical Framework, University of Peace)
Analysis of Alternatives
• There is no fixed format for the project's key criteria to the table below
analysis of alternatives
• The purpose of this tool is to systematically compare various possible intervention strategies focusing on the • The analysis of alternatives helps to choose the best approach for any intervention. This may take a form similar
Criteria 1 (e.g. social) Criteria 2 (e.g. environment) Criteria 3 (e.g. financial) Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Logical Framework Matrix (LFM)
• • • The
logical framework matrix
(LFM) is widely used in project development and implementation and one of its most complex tools Rows: 1. Goal(s) 2. Purpose 3. Outputs/components 4. Activities Columns: 1. Indicators 2. Means of verification 3. Underlying assumptions
Logical Framework Matrix (cont.)
• Also known as the log frame which provides the documented product of the analytical process • It consists of a matrix with four columns and four rows (or more), which summarize the key elements of a project plan – The project's hierarchy of objectives •
Project description or intervention logic
– The key external factors critical to the project ’ s success •
Assumptions
– How the project ’ s achievements will be monitored and evaluated •
Indicators and sources of verification
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Logframe Matrix
Project strategy Overall objectives Purpose Results Activities Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Means Costs Assumptions PRE CONDITION
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Goal Project Purpose Expected Results (Outputs) Activities
LogFRAME
Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME
Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicators
Defines the project structure. It should distinguish between Goal; Purpose; Outputs; Inputs and Activities
Means of Verification Assumptions
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME
Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicators
The emphasis is on the value not just the type of indicators of achievement. Any indicators should be susceptible to measurement or qualitative judgment or both.
Means of Verification Assumptions
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME
Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions
This column sets out how and from what sources of information, each indicators in VI column will be quantified or assessed.
If some of the data may be unreliable the LogFRAME should say so.
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME
Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions
This column should record the important assumptions on which the success of the project depends and the risks that have been considered.
(WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
Information Contained in the Logframe Matrix
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Goal Project Purpose Expected Results Activities Intervention Logic To reduce population growth in a community Verifiable Indicators The reduction of the number of live births per 1000 head of population Means of Verification National statistics Data from public health and ministry of health departments Assumptions Within 5 years for those of reproductive age to have increased their uptake of Family Planning services by 30% The number of live births recorded per annum over a 5 year period Data from hospitals/clinics within the project area Data from birth registration body No overt opposition from religious or anti abortion groups.
The community wants greater access to FP services Those of reproductive age to use family planning methods effectively To recruit and train staff To fully equip a FP clinic To increase the supply of contraceptives Number of attendees at FP clinic Number of pregnancy tests carried out Number using contraceptives Recruitment and training of staff to be completed within 3 months Equipment and all supplies quantified and costed Record number at FP clinic Number of requests for abortions Records are available for baseline data Numbers of staff trained and retained That trainers are available Number of contraceptives issued at FP clinic Equipment and supplies will be available at the start of the project (WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
Logframe – How Do We Use It?
• The logframe is a format for presenting the results of the LFA as a process and is developed on the basis of the LFA tools applied earlier during the analysis phase – Clear statement of what should be accomplished (outputs) – Clear statement of important results that can be expected in the short to medium-term (purpose) and in the long run (goal) • When the logframe has been completed it is used to design further scheduling (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Logframe in the LFA Process
Strength Opportunities
PESTLE analysis Stakeholder analysis
Weaknesses
SWOT analysis
Threats
Problem analysis Objective analysis Strategy analysis
Project strategy Overall Objectives Purpose
The logframe matrix
Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of Verification Assumptions Results Activities Means Cost PRE CONDITION
Schedules Reports (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
The Logframe Structure
• Vertical logic – Identifies what the project itends to do and achieve – Clarifies the causal relationships (means to end) – Specifies important assumptions and risks • Horizontal logic – Specifies indicators to measure progress – Identifies the sources / means by which indicators will be verifies (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
The Logframe Basics
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Means & Cost
•
Means
are the human, material and service resources (inputs) needed to carry out planned activities and management support activities •
Cost
are the financial resources needed to carry out these activities (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)
• Objectively verifiable indicators define the performance standard to be reached in order to achieve the objective • They specify what evidence will tell you if an overall goal, project purpose or result/output is reached in terms of – quantity – quality – time – location / area how much?
how well?
by when?
where?
• They focus on important characteristics of an objective to be achieved • They provide a basis for monitoring and evaluation 32 (Jürgen Carls, Logical Framework, University of Peace)
Objectively Verifiable Indicators (cont.)
Base indicator
1. Increase training in PCM within MFAR • Indicators should include – Quantity – Qualities – Time/dates (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Add quantity (how much)
2. Twenty staff of MFAR and its subdivisions receive training in PCM
Add quality / what kind of change
3. Training of mid level managers and professionals within MFAR in PCM increased by 20 (60 to 80) or 33,3% increase between years
Add time (by when)
4. Training in PCM of mid level managers and professionals within MFAR increased by 20 (60 to 80) by June 2007 or 33,3% increase between 2007 and 2008
SMART
• A good indicator should be SMART •
S
pecific to the objective it is supposed to measure •
M
easurable (either quantitatively or qualitatively) •
A
vailable at an acceptable cost •
R
elevant to the information needs of managers •
T
ime-bound so we know when we can expect the objective/target to be achieved (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
M&E Indicators
35
Sources of Verification (SoV)
• Do appropriate external sources already exist (e.g. reports, statistics)?
• Are these sources specific enough?
• Are the sources reliable and accessible?
• Is the cost of obtaining the information reasonable?
• Should other sources be created?
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Assumptions and Pre Conditions
• Problems identified from the stakeholder analysis that are not tackled by the project itself • Macro-economic, institutional-political, ecological and socio-cultural frame conditions, which cannot easily be influenced • A pre-condition is different from an assumption in that it is a condition that must be fulfilled or met before project activities can start (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Assessment of Assumptions
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Killer Assumptions
• The external factors that are
essential
for the project to achieve its objectives, but will most probably
not be realised killer assumptions
become so called • If the project cannot be redesigned to achieve its objectives without having to rely on the realisation of the respective external factor it should be abandoned (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Relationship Between Assumption and Objective Hierarchy
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
General Sequence of Completion
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Developing the Logical Frame Work Matrix)
Monitoring and Evaluation
• Based on the logical framework • Strengthens accountability and transparency • Provides information for effective management • Helps determine what works well and what requires improvement • Builds knowledge 42 (UNITED NATIONS: Results-Based Management - Logical Framework Approach)
The LogFRAME Monitoring & Evaluation
LogFRAME hierarchy Type of monitoring & evaluation activity Level of information Goal
Ex-post evaluation Outcomes/impact
Purpose Component Objectives Outputs Activities Inputs
Evaluation at completion and ongoing review Ongoing review Monitoring and review Outcomes/effectivene ss Effectiveness and sustainability Output Monitoring Inputs/Outputs AusAid Guidelines (WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
Evaluation & Monitoring
Goal Purpose Results Activities Means Problematic Situation LogFRAME objective hierarchy impact effectiveness efficiency relevance
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y
Evaluation criteria (WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME Advantages
• Brings together in one place a statement of the key components of a project • It presents them in a concise and coherent way (clarifies and shows logic of how the project is expected to work) • It separates the various levels in the hierarchy of objectives (helps to avoid confusion of inputs and outputs) (WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
LogFRAME Advantages (cont.)
• It clarifies the relationships which underlie judgments about likely efficiency and effectiveness of projects • It identifies the main factors related to the success of the project • It provides a basis for monitoring and evaluation by identifying indicators of success and means of quantification or assessment • It encourages a multidisciplinary approach to project preparation and supervision (WHO, Introduction To Logical Framework)
Common Confusion
• Logical Framework Approach is often confused with the Logical Framework Matrix • LFA is a project preparation methodology, whereas the log frame is a document with a special structure, produced at the end of the LFA process • One common misuse of LFA is to design the project first and to "fill in" the Logical Framework Matrix at the end – This is not recommended, as it defeats the whole purpose of the logical framework and the design methodology (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Project Design & Planning)
The Logical Framework Approach Helps
• Because before starting the implementation, projects have:
– Clearly identified stakeholders (primary target group and final beneficiaries) – Clearly defined coordination, management and financing arrangements – A monitoring and evaluation system – An appropriate level of financial and economic analysis (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Project Design & Planning)
Objectivly veriable indicators Sources of Verification Overall Objectives Purpose Results Activities Means Cost PRE CONDITION
(MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Project Design & Planning)
How the LFA method works depends very much on it ’s users The LFA is no better and no worse than it ’s users (MFAR/ICEIDA/UNU-FTP, Project Design & Planning)